C.O.S 08 - You're kidding me [Archive]

Bograt

9th Aug 2007, 12:35

Negotiations Update
Ladies and Gentlemen
Negotiations with the Company have concluded. The HKAOA Negotiating
team has put the proposal to the General Committee, which will now
decide whether to recommend the proposal to the membership.
Time line
The estimated time line for this process is as follows:
• GC advice communicated to the Membership by mid-August.
• Voting opens 12 September
• Voting closes 15 October
Contents of The Proposal
The Proposal covers 5 main elements, which are offered together as a
package. Assuming the GC endorses the Proposal, you will receive
detailed information on all aspects of what is a wide-ranging deal. What
follows is an outline of the essential elements, which are:
• Pay
• Retirement Age
• Direct Entrant First Officer Recruitment
• Closure of ASL
• Miscellaneous Items

Pay
This is a 2 year deal, commencing 1 Jan 2008. There are increases to:
• HDP for all scales,
• B Scales and
• Freighter Scales
The tables below depict the Pay offer. Figures are based on 84 credit hours per month. The ‘Total’ column is an estimate for the total increase over the life of the deal, based on 2007 salary + HDP at 84 Hrs.

1 Jan 08 / 1 Jan 09 / Total
B Scale
AUS
Scale 3.0% / 3.0%
HDP 2.0% / 2.0% /11.5%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.5%
EUR
Scale 4.0% / 4.0%
HDP 2.0% / 2.0% /13.5%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.5%
NZ
Scale 0% / 2.0%
HDP 2.0% / 2.0% /7.5%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.5%
CAN
Scale 0% / 2.0%
HDP 2.0% / 2.0% /7.5%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.5%
USAB
Scale 0% / 0%
HDP 2.0% / 2.0% /5.5%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.5%
HKG
Scale 3.0% / 3.0%
HDP 2.0% / 2.0% /11.5%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.5%
*HKG CNs
As per HKG + change to increment gradient
/11.5% - 14.8%
*In addition to the increases outlined, the 19 HKG B Scale Command pay points will be adjusted so that each increment is 2%. This results in additional uplift ranging from 0% for HKG CN1 to 3.3% for HKG SCN17

1 Jan 08 / 1 Jan 09 / Total
Freighter
AUS
Scale 0% / 2.75%
HDP 2.6% / 2.3% /9.4%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.8%
EUR
Scale 4.0% / 4.0%
HDP 2.5% / 2.3% /14.6%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.8%
CAN
Scale 0% / 0%
HDP 2.3% / 2.3% /6.2%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.6%
USA
Scale 3.0% / 3.0%
HDP 2.9% / 2.2% /12.8%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.7%

1 Jan 08 / 1 Jan 09 / Total
A Scale
AUS
HDP 1.8% / 1.7%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.4% /4.9%
EUR
HDP 1.7% / 1.8%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.2% /4.7%
NZ
HDP 1.8% / 1.7%
PFund HDP -0% / 1.4% /4.9%
CAN
HDP 1.6% / 1.7%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.2% /4.5%
HKG
HDP 1.7% / 1.9%
PFund HDP 0% / 1.2% /4.8%

Changes to HDP
The increases to HDP above describe their effect on TOTAL pay. So, a 2% increase means a 2% improvement on the previous year’s Pay+HDP.
To illustrate this, changes to HDP and basic salary for a UK CN1 Freighter and Passenger are
shown below:
UK CN1 HDP @ 84 Hrs
Annual HDP and Basic Salary
2007 / 2008 / 2009 / ‘07- ‘09 Increase
Basic Pax £94,128 / £97,896 / £101,808 / £7,680
Basic Frtr £75,300 / £78,312 / £81,444 / £6,144
HDP (Pax + Frtr) £5,040 / £7,056 / £9,240 / £4,200

Other Important Notes on HDP Changes:
1. The figures above are based on 84 credit hours per month.
2. The 1st January 2009 HDP increase is “Tiered” and improvements to rates affect only credit hours worked beyond 56 hours, with hours worked in excess of 70 receiving the highest payments.

Changes to PFund Contributions - HDP
From 1st January 2009, HDP will be Provident Fundable. This change will not apply to Officers in CPALRS.

New CoS 08 Unified FO Scale
First Officers who elect to transfer to CoS 08, may move to the CoS 08 unified First Officers Scales at any time they wish. An example of a unified scale is given below.

GRAPH OMITTED - wouldn't cut & paste

FOs may wish to do this to achieve one of two things:
1. Improved Salary
2. Ability to remain flying freighters on base and move to ‘passenger pay’.
Note that an Officer switching to CoS 08 may remain on CoS ’99 salary scales and move to the unified scale at any time.

Retirement Age
CoS 08 has a normal Retirement Age of 65. All Officers will have the opportunity to switch to CoS 08 and work until 65.
However,
• All Officers may elect to remain on CoS ’99 with RA 55.
AND
• Junior Officers remaining on CoS ’99 will be eligible to receive Command bypass pay for passenger Captains working past 55.

Loss of licence in CoS 08 will be increased by 5 years, so that it will start to reduce (1:1) at age 58 and will be nil at age 60.

During the negotiations, the Company indicated that it will be going to “onshore” the basings companies. To a substantial degree this is being forced upon them by Revenue Departments and the applicability of local employment legislation, particularly age discrimination law. The Association will be fully involved in this process as it may have significant effects on based Officers’ contracts. We are already in the process of seeking legal advice regarding the onshoring of bases.

CoS 08 Terms and Conditions Post Working Beyond 55
Most terms and conditions will remain the same beyond 55
• Salary scales will be retained, i.e. an A scale Officer may remain on A scale.
• Expatriate benefits in HKG, such as Housing and Child Education Allowance, will be unchanged.
• CPALRS will not be available post 55. In place, Officers who were in CPALRS will receive PFund contributions into the applicable PFund, BBS or cash in lieu.

Green Page Benefits Post 55
• Green pages medical will be retained post 55.
• All other Green Page benefits, including Leave Passage Allowance (Travel Fund) will cease.
• Officers will transfer to the new travel scheme.

Command Bypass Pay
Command bypass pay, for Captains working beyond 55, will be available to any junior Officer remaining on CoS 99.

Officers on ‘Extensions’ Who Transfer to Cos 08
Officers on a freighter extension will complete a freighter commitment, with freighter service prior to 1 Jan 2008 counting towards that commitment. Transfer back to the passenger fleet will be in accordance with the Freighter Basings Policy. Officers who are held on the Freighter Aircraft beyond their commitment period will be eligible for Integration Deferment Pay. Upon completion of their Freighter commitment, such Officers will return to their original Salary Scale and accrued increment.

Officers on C&T extensions will revert to CoS 08 terms and conditions from 1 Jan 2008.

Direct Entrant Officer Recruitment
The general concept of last year’s DEFO proposal remains, in that this proposal allows FOs to be recruited directly to the passenger fleet on a unified First Officer scale.

However there are some crucial improvements.
• Officers receive 6 weeks leave.
• The current USAB command scale will be available to new joiners.
• The unified scale in the US has been increased by 6% so that FO earnings over 10 years are unchanged from the current typical progression.
• The unified scales includes 3 ‘freighter level’ pay points, followed by an intermediate pay point followed by 6 SFO pay points at the ‘passenger level’. An example is given above (GRAPH OMITTED) in the ‘Pay’ section. This improved profile now reflects what happens today, in that freighter Officers generally move to the passenger fleet after about 31/2 years.
• The Hong Kong scale remains unchanged.

The Permanent Basing Policy Agreement (PBPA) will be amended to require that all First Officers attain the rank of SFO1 and remain on base for at least 2 years before returning to HKG.

As a reminder, here are some DEFO features that remain.
DEFO Positions Offered to Current Officers First
DEFO positions will be offered to current Officers first through the PBPA. Freighter FOs and SOs may take these in seniority. If they have finished their freighter commitment (FFOs) or been assessed as suitable (SOs) they will go on current passenger pay. If not, they will go on CoS 08 and the unified First Officer Scales.
Transition
The transition lasts until the last current Officer has had a chance to become a passenger FO.
• During the transition, there will still be freighter only FOs. This is to allow ‘passenger’ DEFOs to be identified. These identified passenger DEFOs will trigger FO bypass pay for current SOs.
• Unlike the current system, the Company will pay FO bypass pay to un-assessed SOs.
• There will be no DEFO recruitment to HKG during the transition period.
FO Bypass Pay After the Transition
After the transition, FO bypass pay will be paid to SOs for all DEFOs. (Not just DEFOs recruited to the passenger fleet.) However, SOs in the future must have served 42 months to become eligible for FO bypass pay.

Closure of ASL
ASL will be wound up and so the FACA will cease to exist.
ASL crews will join the bottom of the Aircrew Seniority List in rank and on pay point. Note that the Captains involved will remain on the freighter Command pay scale and be restricted to freighter flying until they achieve passenger seniority as per the Freighter Basing Policy.

This will mean that the voluntary nature of freighter flying will cease. The following improvements to rostering have been secured:
1. 747F Classic crew will be credited at the rate of 1.14, as opposed to 1.07.
2. Compensation will be paid for loss of G-Days caused by down route disruption when operating Freighter aircraft.

Miscellaneous
Termination of Employment - Section 35.3 of CoS
This section of CoS allows for the termination of employment by either party giving 3 months’ notice or payment in lieu.

The Company will add agreed words in this section that require the Company to give reasons, in writing, for termination under this section and also provide the Officer access to the full appeals process set out in the D&G Procedure.

Scope
CoS is amended to scope all wide body aircraft including freighters. Previously only passenger aircraft were included.

Freighter Commands
The Company has committed to meet with the AOA to review the ongoing benefits of maintaining separate salary scales for Passenger and Freighter Captains. This will take place once this agreement has been ratified and the work associated with its implementation has been completed. Also, the Joint Rostering Committee will be tasked with reviewing credits for change of PX/PT and manning level provisions on the freighter.

Steve Turner
President
HKAOA
09 August 2007

Strike Force

9th Aug 2007, 12:40

A big fat :mad: NO from where I sit.

It's easy, just offer us One World 777 pay! :ugh:

The Management

9th Aug 2007, 13:23

From what I can gather there are no more that 50 CX pilots that post on Pprune. Of those 50, I suspect that many have 2-3 pseudynoms.

Pprune does not represent the majority of CX pilots and many that do not post will take the pay increase.

You either vote for it or we will implement it. You may as well get a little money out of it.

It's over and you lost. Capitulate now.

The Management

CSA

9th Aug 2007, 13:31

You are probably right, vote for it or not, thats what you get. But on the up side, at least that crusty old A scale millionaire check captain will be in a good mood as he inserts the inevitable pineapple at your next sim/line check (for your next 10 years on SFO 6 pay):O:O:O:O

Yeager

9th Aug 2007, 13:32

Hahahah... Is'nt it funny... To tell u the truth. It could actually have been worse. Congrats to the "old boys club" (A scalers) - they are the only winners in this one - and hey good for you/them.

The real loosers are all of the "not yet in command" (F/Os, S/Os). You can now sit back and see your lifetime salary reduced as a consequense of an extension until 65Y. Prob 3-6Y depending on the ways of the world.

That's life and life must go on.. Vote it down - yeah right - and then what.. :}

Nullaman

9th Aug 2007, 13:38

You either vote for it or we will implement it. You may as well get a little money out of it.

They (management) get a lot and we get a 'little'......hmmmmm...sounds about right.

You are probably right about the number of posters tho'. It would be worthwhile seeing the silent majority climb out of their shells, for a change, and pass comment - good or bad.

We live in interesting times.

N
(My ONLY pseudonym)

cpdude

9th Aug 2007, 14:17

This is crap! As a North American I get a big fat 0% pay rise! Sure tell me I will get 2% from HDP but it's still 0% on the salary.

So why is it that everyone (base area) gets a different deal?

Haven't had a pay rise since 99 and now we have to wait until Jan 08 to get some crumbs?

Why do we have to wait until 15 October to discard this "turd"?

CX stop playing games...you know this will be voted down so just show us the real deal that you will force on us for the second vote!:mad:

badairsucker

9th Aug 2007, 14:42

Dear Cathay Pacific,

Please may I have some time off as I am required to attend an interview with EK.

Many thanks.

Insulted aircrew.:=

elgringo

9th Aug 2007, 14:48

0% for USAB...I guess no Yanks in the AOA..I thought NR wanted to hire more US crew..I think this may be the wrong way to go about it.

UPS here I come...

Numero Crunchero

9th Aug 2007, 15:34

Did some one say 15% payrise for B scale CNs? Really? Must have missed that over the last 2 months! I got 2x3% and 2x2%- as long as you work exactly 84 hours. Work 56 hours and it is closer to 2x3% and 1 x 1.3% (2nd HDP doesn't start till 57th hour). The deal sort of covers the period 1/1/08-31/12/09. Last payrise was for period 1/7/01-30/6/02. So in 7 1/2 years B scales would have received betwen 7.3% and 10% in total!

I will try to be dispassionate here as NC's ethos is 'just the facts m'am'.

This is the best deal that could be negotiated. What would you prefer - that we had walked away 6 weeks ago because the offer was no where near what we wanted/expected? Now you know the maximum of what was on offer, it is up to you to decide whether its worth accepting or not.

Need to make a couple of points clear. Regardless of any vote, RA65 is happening and DEFO is happening. What you are really voting on is the payrise and the removal of the FACA(Freighter Aircraft Crewing Agreement).

You can vote yes or no but RA65 will happen. Over a year ago the company was offering degraded B scale conditions for extension. Now they are offering degraded A scale. I leave it up to you to work out why.

There is some mystery to bypass pay. As I understand it, as long as you have not signed over to CoS08(ie. not gone on a base) you will be entitled to it. The most junior guys may get a year or so as an SO and 2years + as a FO. How it is actually determined vis a vis 3bar, 4 bar, backdated, assessed etc I am not sure. What I do know is that it does not 'pass down the line'. Under current bypass rules, if an FO defers command(eg on an Aus basing and waiting for an Aus CN basing slot) he does not get bypass. That bypass will then pass onto the next most senior FO. The bypass pay system with RA65 does not work like that. If the next FO has signed CoS08 then NO one gets the bypass pay. Clear as mud?

Predicting the effect of RA65 is like reading tea leaves. How many CNs stay and for how long? How much does the expansion rate change due to RA65?

My best guess - and it is a scientific guess - is that it will add about 3 years to a junior guy. I am assuming no Sep 11s, asian contagions or SARS. To be fair, those events will effect us either with or without RA65.

In summary - you are NOT voting for RA65 or DEFO. You are voting for the payrise and letting ASL into our company(about 39CNs and 8FOs). Letting ASL in negates the raison d'etre for the FACA. This means pax crew can man the freighter and work under the freighter rostering rules when operating the freighter. RA65 and DEFO will be included in the deal but please understand they are happening no matter what you vote.

The result of staying on CoS99 is that you cannot take a base as an FO. If you wished to be based, not only will you have to wait longer for your command due RA65, you will have no bypass pay recompense, unlike your hkg colleagues. Go on a base or stay on a base and you effectively make yourself forever ineligible to receive bypass pay - until someone reaches 65 anyway! The difference is likely to be over a $1million HKD for junior SOs. Over 400 of our 1050 FOs are currently based. I have no idea how many junior FOs and SOs planned to take a base but I would hazard a guess and say this arbitrary bypass interpretation affects approx 50% of FO/SOs???

Clear as dirt challenged water?

christn

9th Aug 2007, 16:06

If the FACA diasppears will flying the freighters be compulsory?

cpdude

9th Aug 2007, 16:07

Thanks for that NC!

Who in their right mind would want to effectively cancel the FACA? As for the 2% HDP I would get...I think CX knows where I would like to shove that!:mad:

Same old CX...nothing ever changes!

The greater the profit the greater the greed.

christn, yes it will as there won't be any agreement left!

Mr. Bloggs

9th Aug 2007, 16:17

NC, I guess we must give up then.

FYI

9th Aug 2007, 16:43

Quick, where do I sign up...................big fat NO!!
Thanks for the 0% payrise. Thats the way to attract recruits in the US.
What a way to work out pay scales.....compare CX to the scales of a bunch of beaten down airlines in the US and then effectively punish us for their airlines financial problems. Nice one.
But wait, there's more. Not only can I start to enjoy all the pleasant aspects of freighter flying and rostering, have my command delayed AT LEAST 3 years, but then you want to cap my pay scale at SFO6. Oh, and no bypass pay under COS 08.......
Quick, where do I sign up!!
NO, NO, NO.

stillalbatross

9th Aug 2007, 18:01

If you want to figure on loss of income due time to command extended figure on optomistically only a shade over $110,000 per month income lost for every month your career remains as f/o if you timeline it to age 65 for anyone joining cx at approx age 30.

It's not too bad but the soon to be 14 yrs time to command is getting high.

Iwannahumpalot

9th Aug 2007, 18:03

Ladies and gentledudes,

On behalf of the Air body, i want to take this oppurtunity to thank you for ensuring that my gonads are drawn through my body and out my mouth!!

This deal that is set before us, was never going to be a legitimate deal, not when our own "negotiating", i use that word very lightly, team went into the talks and asked for only a meesly 10% increase in pay. I say, and this is just my own humble, and young opinion, that we vote NO and that we vote for our AOA President, our Hitler wannabe OUT!!! Since his tenure we have bent over backwards and taken it up the tradesman's entry. I have faith in most of our GC however, crap runs downhill and Steve has some amazing crap!!!

Thank you all for your attention, i might sound humorous but this is serious stuff boys and girls, and the time is now for acting..

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO----->> to COs 08
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO----->> AOA President

Your esteemed and loyal subject,

elgringo

9th Aug 2007, 18:51

Amen, Brother!

XCX-SOHAPPY

9th Aug 2007, 19:32

I wonder who will be the next 49ers when this thing gets ugly???

XCX-SOHAPPY

backspace

9th Aug 2007, 23:15

Of course the other thing to remember for all the DEFOs (Freighter and Pax) is that if it now takes 12-13 years for command. The F/O pay scales dont go anywhere after 10years. Another 2-3 year saving for the company!!!
Next one is to gain max benefit in the short term, F/Os need to swap to COS08 and the unified pay scales The unified pay scales are actually less at the Yr5 and 6 SFO level than the COS99 ones. Yet another saving for the company.
Haven't done the figures but my bet would be that the savings from the COS08 SFO YR5 & 6 and the extra 2-3 years spent on the F/O pay scales would be cost neutral to the company and effectively not amount to a pay rise over the 12-13 yr period at all.

Only looked at the AUS base, sure to be different elsewhere.

Arcla

9th Aug 2007, 23:29

Just got in from a flight to read this CRAP FRIGGIN deal!!!! what an absolute kick in the teeth. Take this and shove it.
Guess thats another NO!!!!!:mad:

LapSap

9th Aug 2007, 23:33

Perhaps a lot of you are too young to remember 2 significant events in the aviation industry in the 80's- 1 pilot related, 1 ATC related.

Management Rule 1. Nobody, but nobody, is indispensable.

XCX-SOHAPPY may be right.

F Scaler

9th Aug 2007, 23:47

I have just read the recent COS proposal and am somewhat baffled as to what we actually negotiated, considering the current record profit! Credit, however, in someway shape or form should be given to the negotiation team as they really don’t have much support (55%) from the pilot body. In my mind, we should walk away from the table immediately and concentrate on membership recruitment, but I’m kind of hoping this issue could be the very thing to boost our numbers. Mmm! A number of issues here are blatantly obvious to us all, however here are my thoughts.

I immediately read 6% over 2 years. Let’s just think about that. No pay rise in 7 years, add these 2 and you get an exceptional 0.67% per year. Admittedly the 7 in that percentage makes it look better! Let me just state one thing. I came here as an expat! I didn’t come here to eventually retire in Hong Kong. I cannot use local inflation figures as I am an EXPAT! I need to use domicile figures. If the economy is booming in my domicile you can rest assured that CX is making cash in that market on currency exchange, of which can alleviate a warranted pay rise. I recall receiving a lot of information from the AOA pre talks, concerning domicile inflationary figures, currency movements, pays and lost compound interest we should be achieving. Needless to say, I thought there may have been a figure markedly different to what I read.

I see the COS 08 UFO starts at a pay some 25% lower than we have now, and only achieves current FO1 or better at year 5. Forget compound interest. Some S/O’s may say ‘so be it’. This is a major degradation from our current COS! We have the ability to and are currently recruiting Pax FO’s on FO1 – Day 1. This is a reshaped C scale!
Also, US FO pay will reach current pay over a 10 year period. Again, degradation! What about lost compound interest?

A scale to 65. Fair for A scale BUT, what happens to B scale? There are a number of issues. An immense delay to command for one! NC has worked these figures in a different post. Compensation is the key but bypass pay stays at C1, regardless of time and there are no C benefits (travel etc.). What about SO’s – No bypass pay with these A scale extensions?
Consider your 54! You weren’t going to extend, but hey, A scale continues. What are you going to think? - Cream! I’m thinking lets take a base with my seniority number and do up to the 10 years on the base. Do I need to ask when a relatively new Captain could get a base? NEVER!
Another issue is that FO’s are unable to take a base until SFO1! You can do the sums.

With all due respect to the Negotiating team, we must consider that our team are Pilots, NOT professional negotiators. I know these guys have done the IFALPA course but we need a professional or 2 to score points where none of us would have looked. The company bought Sten! We should do the same.
All I ask is those of you not in the union, please put aside your grievances, join (it’s cheap) and have a say. It seems bizarre, on an issue as important as this to leave it to the gods and not be able to vote one way or the other, and then blame the union for the outcome.
B Scaler. I would like to hear your views?

Numero Crunchero

9th Aug 2007, 23:52

The following is financial advice so blah blah blah your own accountant or financial adviser;-)

If you spent 10 years on pax B scales vs UFO scales, you will earn almost 10% more on US, Aus and UK bases. If you are a current employee and choose to take an FO basing, in FO seniority you can remain on B scales until UFO passes it. In that case if you switch in your 5th year you will earn 1% more than if you remained solely on the pax B scale.

NOTE! For US based guys, there are only 10 increments in UFO vs 14 for USAB pax. So in that case, staying on pax scale is the smart thing to do.

Once you nominate onto UFO, you can't come back to pax FO B scales - Command scales unaffected.

If you are an SO and bid for a pax basing out of seniority (ie if you are not the most senior SO) then you will automatically start on UFO.

Lets say you had a year to go till your FO upgrade. If you went on Aus basing now(1/1/08) your starting salary will be $92,664 (+HDP+15.5%). If you wait a year till your upgrade and then bid on the base in seniority as an FO, your starting salary (1/1/09) will be $126,024 (+HDP+15.5%). In the year you are waiting for upgrade you could reasonably assume to receive some bypass pay due to all the DEFOs. Currently about 20 DEFOs.

Million dollar question - will the FO base be available in a years time? Are you prepared to take a base and forever waive your right to bypass pay(which could possibly be over a million HKD lost)?

Take your time - think it through - I am happy to do 'what ifs' if you PM me - just don't expect a quick reply;-)

CSA

10th Aug 2007, 00:28

I suspect the lack of money in the deal for most of us reflects the need for the company to keep bags of money in reserve for an increase in training captain pay. Most of the training captains I talk to have only gone back into or stayed in training to get an extension, so there could be a major exodus without an improved package.

Stiflers

10th Aug 2007, 00:34

Ok, anyone talking of a pay RISE is fooling themselves! As Hoolio said in another thread.... we require a minimum of 20% just to break EVEN. So if you sign this deal, you ARE TAKING A HUGE PAY CUT.

I can't remember who it was who said about getting rid of Steve, but i couldn't agree more. He's so in Nick's pocket it's rediculous.

Tell me this though..... who's willing to STOP WORK.
I guarantee we'll see something good come on the table if CX shuts it's doors for a day or 2. Would be interesting to see how many would strike..... It's the only way in my opinion. Also, use your sick leave.... your entitled to it. No G day callouts etc.... F*** em

Just my 2 cents.....

XCX-SOHAPPY

10th Aug 2007, 00:36

Cathay Pacific enjoys 54.7% increase in first-half profit

Thursday August 9, 2007

The addition of Dragonair accounts into Cathay Pacific's books, along with higher yields and robust demand, helped the Hong Kong-based airline group lift its profit attributed to shareholders for the six months ended June 30 by 54.7% to HK$2.58 billion ($329.57 million) from HK$1.67 billion in the year-ago semester.

Group turnover rose 27.9% to HK$34.63 billion and expenses climbed 25.2% to HK$26.29 billion. Operating profit was up 50.7% to HK$3.19 billion compared to HK$2.12 billion. Dragonair became a wholly owned subsidiary of the CX Group last fall (ATWOnline, Sept. 29, 2006).
"This is a strong result, with record figures posted despite the impact of the drop in cargo demand and the continued impact of high fuel prices. The Group is in good shape at the moment, and we are now seeing clear benefits resulting from the acquisition of Dragonair," Chairman Christopher Pratt said.

The two airlines carried a combined 11 million passengers during the semester, with a load factor of 78.1% and yields of HK$0.537. Cathay Pacific's load factor rose 0.5 point to 79.6% as passenger numbers climbed 4.1% to 8.5 million and yield increased 10.9% to HK$0.508, mainly as a result of "strong demand" from first and business class passengers.
CX's freight load factor fell 1.4 points to 66.3% and yield dropped 8.3% to HK$1.55. "We see the downturn in cargo as short term and remain confident in the future of Hong Kong's airfreight industry," Pratt said. The company has submitted a formal bid for the third cargo terminal at HKG, which Pratt said is "crucial to Hong Kong's future competitiveness as an airfreight hub."

CX plans to take delivery of its first five of 23 777-300ERs from September through December and plans to install its new long-haul product on 15 aircraft by year end. "The second half results should benefit from the additional capacity, although higher fuel prices would have a negative effect," Pratt said.

by Geoffrey Thomas

Tonto Kowalski

10th Aug 2007, 01:38

Given that both the company and association updates have alluded to the fact that both COS 99 and COS 08 will be in effect...what is the vote for?! Is it just to choose which COS you would prefer to be on?!
NC: I would suggest the smart move for all B scale based FO's (not just USAB) would be to stay on the COS 99 scale indefinately, given that at SFO 6 the UFO scale is LESS and command may still be many years away??

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 02:02

FYI: I agree this initial "offer" is crap and we should all vote NO
However If I read the document correctly you will get a small payrise through an increase in HDP of 2%. The 2% increase in HDP describes the effect on Total pay. So it's 2% increase on the lot not just on HDP. So it's crap, but not 0%.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

cpdude

10th Aug 2007, 02:24

Yes, 2% if you fly 84 hours!

1.79% at 75 hours.

777300ER

10th Aug 2007, 02:31

n the year you are waiting for upgrade you could reasonably assume to receive some bypass pay due to all the DEFOs.

Question NC... What good are provisions for bypass pay when officers will only be "assessed" one month before their upgrades????

jed_thrust

10th Aug 2007, 02:40

"Giggleswick
A Letter of Thanks to Our Esteemed Negotiating Team"

I note that there are still some slots open for you to join the next GC.

Looking forward to being on the receiving end of your greatness....

Bograt

10th Aug 2007, 02:52

Just a reminder from the 2006 CX annual results:
Nick Rhodes
Salary Bonus Benefits Retirement Bonus Housing '06 Total '05Total
1,500 1,112 437 270 654 1,684 5,289 5,657

And don't forget - management of all forms keep 10% of any monetary savings their own department makes... GMA included... So any cash value GMA can attribute to COS08 he keeps 10% at our expense.

jobe

10th Aug 2007, 03:09

Stinks like a freshly troden dogturd.The A-scalers must be laughing their heads off! In essence the AOA (I always referred to it as the "A-scale Officers Association") has negotiated a 30% payrise for them post 55,and, by default, a paycut for anyone hoping to be promoted. Astonishing!

SAY NO TO THIS STEAMING PILE.
SAY NO TO A-SCALE PAST 55 NO MATTER WHAT THE EVENTUAL PACKAGE.

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 03:10

Giggleswick: this would be a funny story if it wasn't true. But it is...

Another 10 years at A scale.....................who needs the lotto

jobe

10th Aug 2007, 03:25

Mate,I've actually been present when an A-scale BTC was bitching that he couldn't afford to retire at 55.
Hey,I've got a great idea,abolish the A-scale starting now and the savings can be used to enhance a new single salary scale.

As an aside,I was in conversation recently with that most interesting of species,the "A-scale wife". For some reason the conversation turned and she said to me "...if you hadn't joined there would be no B-scale". Quite.
Did she form that opinion herself? More likely she was quoting someone else.I wonder who that might be?

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 03:41

yeah I've been with A scalers that bitch and moan about their pay. They don't know how lucky they are. Most think there is very little difference between pay scales!! how dumb is that:D
But...............we should be trying to move up to their level and not bring them down to ours.

elgringo

10th Aug 2007, 03:43

all the sarcasm aside..what are the mighty CX PILOTS going to do about this insulting offer?

I personally don't even think it worth acknowledging much less talking about or voting. It is pathetic. I think we should follow the example of the NW pilots...

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 03:48

Let me see: B scale Captains: 50% vote NO
B scale F/O + S/O: 100% vote NO
A Scale Captains: 100% vote YES
A Scale F/O's: ???? god knows
Will that be enough to get it over the line? NO
VOTE NO

jobe

10th Aug 2007, 04:06

Just so that you get the full picture, the difference between "A" & "B" scale at the moment is about HK$1,000,000 per year. About half in salary,half in provident fund.(The old P-fund is huge compared to that Fidelty crock of s**t that is thrust upon us)

B-scaler are you out there? We need to hear from you bro.

cpdude

10th Aug 2007, 04:06

ACMS, what makes you think 50% of B scale Capt's would vote yes? Do you really think they want to fill their roster with freighter flights?

The only people I can see saying yes are A scalers 54+ who want the extension now at A scale salaries. Younger A scalers can afford to wait for a better package and not fly the freighter while waiting.

I predict a 90% NO vote!:}

The Management

10th Aug 2007, 04:09

They are going to sign if they know what is best for them. Do you really think the pilots will do anything? Our extendees will do all the flying. Most pilots are talking as if it is voted in and they can do nothing, they are the smart ones. Follow them.

Ask your friends if they will do anything, I think not. Why? Because they are scared and they have no place to go. Where will you go, Air India, Korean, Jet Airways, Jetstar, Virgin Blue, don’t make me laugh. You will not go to legacy carriers because of seniority. Most would be shocked to do more than 3 sectors a day. I am sure Easy and Ryan do at least 6 to 7. Most of you don’t want to work that much.

Just accept it, you have lost and will never get what YOU think you are worth. Plus you are all expendable. We just need a couple. I wish some of you would test OUR resolve. You are a pathetic little group.

You may get some profit share, but we may have to change the formula again. We will let you know by December. Fuel prices are high, we are still debating the 13 th month. May have to put a cap on it, that way all the office staff receive a full month but we take away from the pilots. Why? Because we can!

My bonus will be huge this year and I thank you from the bottom of MY BONUS. You are really a pathetic bunch. Here's to easy living.

The Management

jobe

10th Aug 2007, 04:12

I only know of one A-scale 744 pax pilot who doesn't fly the freighter. And believe me I've scoped out the master roster pretty thoroughly.

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 04:14

The Management: try coming to the 777. We do 3 sector days. Not unusual to complete 10 sectors in 4 days around Asia. We could do 4 sector days too if they were 1 hour flights with 20 to 30 min turnarounds ya dick head.

And I can get a nice job flying 777's for EK, KE, and Virgin Australia. So pull ya head in or I might just go.

moron

cpdude

10th Aug 2007, 04:17

There is no disgrace nor danger in voting NO!

The Management is probably correct in that CX could or will impose a contract on us but I say let them force it on us but show them with a vote what we think about it.

They can impose DEFO and Age 65 but they cannot force us to fly freighter aircraft! If we allow them to close ASL we will lose the FACA. Just watch the 400 roster go to crap if that happens.

As for "profit share"...it doesn't exist! It's just a tease from management.

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 04:18

CPDUDE: most B scale Captains are on the 777 or the Bus, not too much freighter flying there. I guessed at 50% because I figure a lot of B scale Captains will be resigned to only getting a small pay rise and they don't care about F/O's and S/O's slow promotion rates below them.

Harbour Dweller

10th Aug 2007, 04:23

As ACMS said there are lots of other opportunities that exist for CX pilots.

Better still, more choice for possible new joiners with better packages elsewhere.

Does Management really believe they are going to attract DEFO's or SO's as they have previously looking at COS08.

Unlike what the 3rd floor believes the gloss isn't that shiny :eek:

XCX-SOHAPPY

10th Aug 2007, 05:35

I'm voting YES.

CSA

10th Aug 2007, 05:35

When I came to CX, B scales were put on the table, and I signed up to work for that to age 55. The A scalers were fortunate enough to turn up when there was more on the table, good luck to them. I have always defended the right of the A scalers to get what they signed up for.

Now we are talking about something different, 55 - 65. If the company is willing to pay A scales for 55 - 65, then that what we all should get. I have been condemned to being paid less than the guy next to me for doing the same job so far at Cathay, but why should that be the case for 55 - 65 which is a whole new deal. It must be a common scale.

And please don't be misled into believing the negotiation team could have no bearing on this deal. I have seen pay negotiations in the past, there is a certain amount of steering you can do form the AOA side of the table. They were obviously happy with the general trend.

I thought that most pilots (and the company) now generally concede the initial decision to split pay scales was not a good idea for anyone. Lets not do it again!!!! :ok:

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 06:06

I see you are X CX.

I would say you have already voted with your feet.

Five Green

10th Aug 2007, 06:08

CSA :

I think you nailed it ! We should get the same scale for the additional 10 years. Not that I am going to be anywhere near an airplane then (please oh please no !!)

As for N. America I think it git hosed because no one on the negotiating team understands N.American pay packets. Therefore when presented to the mgmnt in the info gathering stage some serious math mistakes were made. Resulting in the company assuming they can shaft the N Americans more than the rest !!!

Good thing I have that eastern block passport. Think I will go back to the Stans and fly !

As for freighter flying. You could not pay me enough to spend that much time away from Home. Keep your deal I am voting NO NO NO and when they force it on us I will stay on COS99.

Peace out.

BScaler

10th Aug 2007, 07:07

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are not many positive posts regarding what has been released by the AOA concerning CoS 08 so far, and I share the negative sentiment expressed by many.

I would encourage as many of you who are eligible, to post your comments, both for and against this agreement, on the AOA website under 'Members' Corner - Forums'. There are threads set up for comment there, and I am sure the GC will consider them as they consider whether or not to recommend this deal to the AOA membership.

I agree that, apart from the A-Scale community and a minority of the more junior of our colleagues, CoS 08 appears to offer little to the majority of the aircrew community at a time when the demand for pilots is at an all-time high, and the company has posted record interim profits.

Here are a few initial points to consider when looking at the incomplete picture we have been presented with thus far on CoS 08:

it offers a pitiful pay rise bearing in mind the length of time since CoS 99 was minted, the productivity increases aircrew have given in that intervening period, not to mention the pressure that the introduction of Age 65 retirement takes off the recruiting department;
further, the pay rise is not retrospective, but takes effect well into the future;
junior officers' command prospects are not protected from the effects of a possible industry slowdown by any mechanism. Mitigation is offered to junior officers by allowing them the choice to remain on CoS 99, in which case they receive bypass pay for those captains employed beyond age 55, but command time will inevitably be affected. Professional advancement has intrinsic value that can not simply be measured in dollar terms, hence this being an undesireable feature of the CoS 08 agreement;
the DEFO proposal, despite improvements, still amounts to offering new joiners lesser conditions than what we enjoy right now on CoS 99. The Company currently employs new joiner passenger DEFOs on CoS 99. The fact that they also employ freighter DEFOs on lesser conditions is a scenario the Company introduced in past years to save them money. We should not have to agree to lesser CoS for new joiners just to help the Company out of a mess they created in the first place. If the Company desires that all officers fly both passenger and freighter aircraft in the future, then the Company should offer passenger terms and conditions to all officers, just as they did in the past when this same arrangement was in place;
some A-Scale colleagues are currently accepting less than B-Scale conditions to extend their employment. 'Market Forces' would suggest that the proposal under CoS 08 for full A-Scale remuneration and expat terms for continuation of employment of these officers to age 65, is generous, particularly seeing as the A-Scale Provident Fund was designed to provide for a comfortable retirement at age 55;
bearing this in mind, I cannot see any justification for an increase in A-Scale remuneration at this time, until B-Scale reaches A-Scale salary scales. Note that I do not advocate a reduction in A-Scale pay, just a hold until B reaches A. It has been 14 years since the introduction of B-Scales and the 'advance A-Scales at all costs and eventually bring B up to A...' argument has run it's course and been found wanting. I believe, therefore, that the amount allocated to increasing A-Scale remuneration in this agreement should be applied to B-Scales first, in an effort to bring aircrew pay scales into line with each other, and then have the scales progress upwards together in unity. Any fair-minded A-Scale officer could not have any serious issue with this proposal, especially as A-Scale officers stand to gain 10 bonus years of employment;
this agreement does not address the concerns of LEPs in that no provision has been made to take some of the money in the pot and apply it to an LEP Housing Allowance in an attempt to align CoS for all members of the aircrew community here at Cathay.The points I have laid out so far are not exhaustive. Bear in mind that what we are privy to thus far is just the bare bones. The real meat of the agreement has yet to be released to the aircrew community. The devil is always in the detail and I am sure the detail in this agreement will receive alot of attention.

My challenge to those in the GC considering whether or not to endorse CoS 08 to the AOA membership, is to present the entire argument for the membership's consideration. The pros and the cons. Leave nothing out, present both sides of the argument, and allow the membership to mull over the good and the bad equally.

I look forward to the release of further details of the agreement, and in particular the recommendation by the GC as to whether or not they believe ratification of CoS 08 to be in the best interests of the aircrew community.

BScaler

jobe

10th Aug 2007, 07:21

You didn't figure it out yet? The nickel & dime payrise/HDP is pure smokescreen.The real driver behind COs '08 is the "Old Boy Network" on the 3rd floor awarding themselves & their crony mates an extra 10 years on the A-scale. Porsches & P-51's are important you know.

junior_man

10th Aug 2007, 07:59

If a freighter guy in US signs onto this it is a paycut from year four on.
If you don't sign onto it, the new hires will make more in their first year than you. (but you will make more when you go to pax fleet)
And hopefully there will be a slot for you to join pax fleet at year four or you will be hosed and stuck on the freighter.
Still trying to figure out what is good in this if you are not 54 years old.

BusyB

10th Aug 2007, 08:04

BScaler,

I'm not going to answer all your points despite inaccuracies.

However
"My challenge to those in the GC considering whether or not to endorse CoS 08 to the AOA membership, is to present the entire argument for the membership's consideration. The pros and the cons. Leave nothing out, present both sides of the argument, and allow the membership to mull over the good and the bad equally.

I look forward to the release of further details of the agreement, and in particular the recommendation by the GC as to whether or not they believe ratification of CoS 08 to be in the best interests of the aircrew community."

needs correction. I can assure you that many of us would like the entire case, both sides, made public.
Whether or not the GC recommends this is not a measure of their support of it, but a measure of how much they want the membership (including the GC) to be able to vote on it.:ok:

bobrun

10th Aug 2007, 08:20

Now we are talking about something different, 55 - 65. If the company is willing to pay A scales for 55 - 65, then that what we all should get. I have been condemned to being paid less than the guy next to me for doing the same job so far at Cathay, but why should that be the case for 55 - 65 which is a whole new deal. It must be a common scale.

Very sensible and reasonable. Why have two standards past 55? The talk is about a unified FO scale; a unified scale past 55 would be just as justified.

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 09:19

You know guys if you wanted proof the company were desperate to hire/keep Pilot's then look no further that A scalers extending on A scale.
They are desperate need every single Pilot and wouldn't have offered it otherwise.
Lets hold our ground, we will get a better offer.

BUSYB: what in BSCALERS post do find inaccurate? do tell as I'd love to know.

goathead

10th Aug 2007, 09:21

IF it is that the GC recommend this , then stop WASTING MY F**KING TIME >
HEADS SHOULD ROLL
:mad:

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 09:28

From age 55 to 65 all A scalers will get an extra $30,000 mth x 120 months= $3,600,000 in their pay packet.
on the other hand I will lose $650,000 in travel fund over the same period.
yeah............... a good deal:(
Funny how a lot of the GC are A scale, I guess they will endorse the offer.:=

Truckmasters

10th Aug 2007, 09:30

NO.
Have another go.
Certainly not worth giving away other things for. And it will increase the effect on your pay if you are sick. (Which you probably won't be able to insure for, because you are still receiving your base wage)

NO

BScaler

10th Aug 2007, 09:32

Hi BusyB,

As I said, my comments and points are based on the little that has been commented on in the latest negotiations update, and not the full agreement which has not yet been released. There are bound to be a few 'inaccuracies' and feel free to comment on them.

As far as the GC is concerned, I would like to see leadership from the GC one way or another. This is why.

Scenario #1. If the GC endorses CoS 08 and the membership votes the agreement in, this represents confidence by the membership in the judgement of the GC. This is a good thing and is the way things are supposed to happen.
Scenario #2. If the GC endorses CoS 08 and the membership votes it down, (as it did comprehensively on the last DEFO agreement), it represents a lack of confidence by the membership in the judgement of the GC. This is not a good thing, as it demonstrates a disparity between the GC and the community it supposedly represents.
Scenario #3. If the GC does not endorse CoS 08 but puts it to the membership for a vote anyway and the agreement is subsequently voted down, this acts as support to the GC in future negotiations, and will hopefully result in an improved agreement, (witness the DEFO portion of CoS 08, which, though still not acceptable in my view, is still an improvement on the original proposal). This is also the way things are supposed to happen if the final negotiated position is, in the judgement of the GC, unpalatable to the majority of the membership.Also, in any event, should the GC decide to put CoS 08 to the membership for a vote, I would like to see all GC members free to comment publicly on the good and the bad aspects of the agreement, and not have their hands tied so as to be only given the option of supporting an agreement they may otherwise oppose, or vice versa.

BScaler

beerboy

10th Aug 2007, 09:36

Has anybody analysed why the management have decided on this path?
Do remember that they introduced B scale for a reason, and to extend A scale for ten years goes against this logic. So here's my theory ( or at least the theory of a B scale LEP who has a PHd or something like that).
They're extending the A scale for another ten years BECAUSE, its the only battle that they can win. There's nothing (within their reasoning) that they can throw at the B scale which will make them happy. Some chaps mentioned 20% increment, do you think they're going to offer that, NO WAY!!
So go after the only winning strategy, keep the A scale captains happy and F^&k the rest.
Thinking it through, makes perfect sense, they keep all the trainers, because no way they'll leave now; majority of B scalers will bitch and groan but will probably stay, minority of ballsy enough B scalers who leave, well no problem, ramp up the recruitment and replace them. Keep the A scalers and theres at least another ten years before you have to deal with it..
So as my friend puts it..400 FO's leave, who cares, 400 SOs will take their place.
So there you go, why give away money to A scalers instead of trying to give less money to B scalers, and there's your answer!!

ColdWar

10th Aug 2007, 09:37

You're not voting YES, or anything else. You've already told us that you have a job elsewhere, and that you would have nothing to do with the AOA. That makes you either a liar, or a half-wit.
You complain, forever, about what a rotten place CX is, but, yet, spend years working here. That confirms that you either have a) not got the courage of your convictions, b) no spine, or c) both. One day, if you finally leave, you will pat yourself on the back for being alone in your bravery. It will be fitting, because no one else will care - your legacy for having contributed nothing during your time at Cathay.
COS08 is a terribly important matter to CX pilots. All intelligent perspectives and insights are appreciated. It is too important to waste time on the drivel of those who have nothing but harsh criticism for the AOA, which they announce as a "joke", and are constantly bleating about the AOA doing nothing for them. Do you not understand that, by choosing not to belong to the AOA, you have rendered yourselves irrelevant in this critical vote, and your comments in this matter are equally irrelevant. To not recognize this reveals you as either terminally stupid, or naive in the extreme.
By all means, don't join the Association, if that is your choice, but don't, then, be fool enough to complain that it has not done enough to improve your lot in life. It is only you (by belonging) that can give the AOA some teeth.
I think the company offering on COS08 is rotten, and I am willing to bet that someone as honest and forthcoming as Number Cruncher (in cognito) is not anxious to recommend its acceptance, but let us remember that this is not the Excited States or the "Untied" Kingdom, where unions have much more clout. The closest thing we can have to "union power" is for most CX pilots to belong to the AOA, and for the vote to overwhelmingly reject the company proposal.

ColdWar.

Numero Crunchero

10th Aug 2007, 10:05

Mate, I like your posts- well reasoned and set out.

I can assure you all that this has been an incredibly divisive issue amongst the GC. The GC is between a rock and a hard place. If we reject it, you don't even get the chance to vote. If we recommend it we look like rubber stamps for management. Trust me when I say, recommended or not, this package has been argued to death amongst the GC.

I can understand the natural suspicion that this was an A scaler driven package. It was not - we never steered it in that direction. In fact we even suggested doing what B scaler suggests - A scales stay frozen until B catches up.

My main issue with the deal is not the RA65 - I think that was inevitable. WHat I object to is bypass pay being earned contingent on where you choose to live. Bypass pay will not recover the earnings lost by later upgrades but it does ameliorate the losses substantially.

No I don't know how bypass pay will be dished out. I know in the past bypass pay has been paid to someone...how that was determined has shifted over time. I think with up to several hundred people receiving it within 3-5years the company will have to be a lot more transparent about how and to whom it pays. According the CoS you only don't receive it if you are Cat D(?). Maybe some recent receivers or non- receivers of bypass pay can enlighten us.

I know it is an A scaler GC - 50%. But think about it. What do I personally have to gain from this deal. I have over a decade to worry about RA55 ( I am younger than I look;-). I can assure you that all the GC I know have good intentions. You may disagree with the GC as a whole or individuals..thats fine...thats called democracy. But I can assure you that as far as I am concerned each and every GC member is acting in the best interests of our members. It just so happens that within the GC we disagree with what is in the best interests of the membership.

In my view the negotiated position was a long way from what we asked for. Its very easy to find a scape goat. Just remember that in 1999 and 2001 deals were imposed in spite of negotiation.

In summary.
You are not voting for RA65 and DEFOs - they will happen regardless of what you vote. A scales, on the bases at least, are likely to remain A scalers due to anti discrimination legislation.

You are voting on whether you are happy that the payrise(if you get one) is fair and if you want the FACA gone.

jobe - was I the only one not flying freighters? I thought there were more of us! I don't want 'interesting' flying anymore - had 20+ years of it already!

oriental flyer

10th Aug 2007, 10:19

Hey B scaler Whilst I agree that the pay offer is an insult to everyone , what makes you think that the A scale salary should be frozen .

You wrote “ bearing this in mind, I cannot see any justification for an increase in A-Scale remuneration at this time,

Inflation has been increasing in HK for years and we have suffered nothing but pay cuts for years . Yes we were fortunate to sign on when the pay and conditions were better but the cost of everything is going up . A trip to the grocery store should confirm that . So let us have what we deserve and you should fight for a good increment to your pay and conditions. Don’t try to drag us down elevate your position instead

beerboy

10th Aug 2007, 10:41

Oriental Flyer
I understand that you feel a bit put upon by the B scalers, however, would it be fair to say that you're unlikely to be rejecting the proposal?
You see, if you do reject the proposal, and want to stay on, you're shooting yourself in the foot. I f you vote yes, then you manage to keep yourself in a relatively more comfortable lifestyle than any B scaler. So yes you may gripe about BScaler being a bit "vindictive". But in the end, do you really care what he says considering you'll be kept in your lifestyle for at least the next ten years.
If you feel that I 'm picking on you, then I'm sorry, however, just trying to highlight why management have decided to go down this path

sizematters

10th Aug 2007, 11:05

why has everyone been brainwashed into thinking A scales are "too much" B scales are where we all should be , RIGHT ??

WRONG...................A scales worked fine when there was only A scales, so the thing we should be talking about is getteing EVERYBODY onto A scales and then adjusting A scales for inflation since the last increas

Ferk, have we all be completely brainwashed by Cathay or what???

ACMS

10th Aug 2007, 11:19

oriental flyer: Don't get me wrong, I think we need to rise B scales up to A.
But mate, $30,000 per month more than me not to mention $800,000 HK per year of service waiting in your defined benefit P fund.
You A scalers don't budget for the grocery store, you budget for the Ferrari or Porsche store. How many Gold Rolex's do you think I can afford pal.
Get real.

BScaler

10th Aug 2007, 11:26

oriental flyer

I wrote in my submission:

some A-Scale colleagues are currently accepting less than B-Scale conditions to extend their employment. 'Market Forces' would suggest that the proposal under CoS 08 for full A-Scale remuneration and expat terms for continuation of employment of these officers to age 65, is generous, particularly seeing as the A-Scale Provident Fund was designed to provide for a comfortable retirement at age 55;
bearing this in mind, I cannot see any justification for an increase in A-Scale remuneration at this time, until B-Scale reaches A-Scale salary scales. Note that I do not advocate a reduction in A-Scale pay, just a hold until B reaches A. It has been 14 years since the introduction of B-Scales and the 'advance A-Scales at all costs and eventually bring B up to A...' argument has run it's course and been found wanting. I believe, therefore, that the amount allocated to increasing A-Scale remuneration in this agreement should be applied to B-Scales first, in an effort to bring aircrew pay scales into line with each other, and then have the scales progress upwards together in unity. Any fair-minded A-Scale officer could not have any serious issue with this proposal, especially as A-Scale officers stand to gain 10 bonus years of employment;

I don't think this is an unfair assessment, oriental flyer. In fact, I would put money on the fact that some A-Scalers in the GC would altruisically promote this school of thought in negotiations on behalf of all B-Scalers.

Should CoS 08 be presented to the membership and voted down, then perhaps this position could be put to the Company a little more forcefully.

oriental flyer, you stand to gain 10 years of bonus A-Scale employment if CoS 08 is passed - would you not be prepared to forgo 2% HDP to help out your junior colleagues?

BScaler

Hoolio

10th Aug 2007, 12:39

There is a huge amount of information in this update. Don't be fooled and get caught up in the minutia.

For anybody who is not yet a captain, this is a pay CUT and its a bad one. You will earn less over the course of your career, then be forced to work more years to make up the difference.

For Captains on the B scale, this will force you to fly freighters and further divides and weakens us all.

A Scale captains, this deal may be tempting compared to the lousy extensions previously offered, but it is time for all of us to stand together.
The company will always push for dividing pay scales. Based guys vs. Hong Kong, A vs B scale, even now the want to divide us again with COS99 vs COS08. We need to push for unification. Real unifiaction. Same scale for everyone. Local pilots should get housing. NO MORE DIVISIONS. We simply can not allow a new COS for new joiners and take the, "it's ok it doesnt afect me" attitude. It screwed the A scale and they will try to screw the B scale with it too.

The definition of stupidity / insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Let's stop doing the same thing. Band together, vote this down. when they give us a re vote, vote it down too unless it is actually better.
If they want to force this on us then let them do it. At least then we have legal recourse for breach of contract, and it will hurt the recruitment.

This deal is pathetic. It will barely match inflation anywhere over the next 2 years. Then it stops?!?!? No more increments?! If this was a pay discussion it would deal with pay for more than 2 years. This is about age 65. It is not mandated today by law. Until it is, they will have to make the pay break even at least, including remuneration and lifestyle losses.

We have to stop bitching and start talking about courses of action. Then we have to ACT. Each and every one of us. This is the missing step in us getting anything done.

Numero C, I commend the work that you do and all the work the GC does. All of the guys who are bitching about the GC should either stand for the GC or shut up. You are as bad as all the non HKAOA members complaining about what the union should do when they wont even pay to join and vote.

So this leaves us with the question of what can we do?
In the immediate, vote this down. This is obvious, but necessary for several reasons. Not only will it prevent a terrible pay cut going through, but it will also show that there is perhaps a hint of resolve in this broken battered pilot group.
As much as I deplore the extension of the RPo4 / 07 and the subsequent re vote it caused, it still was voted through by the membership. Why did this happen? If the AOA body had shown any resolve, we would have re voted it down and then the company would have had no choice but to improve or impose, which brings us back to legal recourse at worst, and a better deal at best.

Everytime we vote something down, they threaten something worse and we run back to the first deal. This is a surefire way to show them that they never need to give us a good offer in the first place, and they never have to negotiate in good faith. No wonder the AOA negotiating team can't make any progress. The membership keeps cutting the ground out from under them every time we put through a revote.
Isn't it pathetic that we already know there will be a revote on this? Think about that!

The awnser is simple guys

No, then No again.
Its time to start rebuilding the HKAOA to the point where it is worth being a member.

Hoolio
(Dues paid in full from day 1)

Saturn

10th Aug 2007, 13:00

The AOA should NOT put this to the membership! They should stop it dead in it's tracks. They have to know that it is not a good deal. Yes lets' band together but we need our leaders/GC to know when to say NO. This is one of those times. Leaving it up to us I do not think appropriate. What happens if the same issue comes up like RP07. "Well, they kind of said no but let's revote". Sorry but that was wrong. We all need to write the AOA and ask that this not even come to us for a vote and if it does, WE MUST SAY NO. If you are not in the AOA I strongly suggest you join cause this is huge and will affect a lot of careers folks. Winge all you'd like but here is the chance for all of us to really band together.

AAIGUY

10th Aug 2007, 13:27

I said last week there would be a pay cut and look there it is.

And nothing will be done.

"Please sir, may I have another"

Captain TOGA

10th Aug 2007, 13:39

Numero,

Can you please share with us how they came with no payrise for USAB?

christn

10th Aug 2007, 14:20

BA pilots have just received 5.4% backdated to February! Our package (even A scale) is decidedly second rate!

Westcoastcapt

10th Aug 2007, 14:31

What started as a simple pay negotiation has morphed into COS discussions. Go figure.

Emotion aside, this is really about dealing with a growing airline and a shortage of pilots. They need pax / freighter integration and employment past 55 in order to meet the growing demands. Nothing more.

If this is turned down, and I think it will be, the company will suggest that there will be chaos. So be it. They created the mess, let them solve it! Do you really think that they will try the sign or be fired nonsense. The courts have already shown that we are indeed employed in our based areas.

May I suggest that they start with a profit sharing scheme that actually reflects profits. Then go from there.

And please, don't get into this A/B scale drivel. In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.

If there are so many other better options out there, why are you still here?

AAIGUY

10th Aug 2007, 14:41

And please, don't get into this A/B scale drivel. In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.

Or there could be simply one pay scale.

Numero Crunchero

10th Aug 2007, 16:08

B scaler,
what you propose was actually proposed and rejected. HDP will be offered to all regardless of salary scale.

To all A scalers. Yes I appreciate that we have not had a payrise for over a decade. BUT, if you have read some of my previous posts you will note that in 2009 B scales are at the levels of A scale in 1992! As much as I need new wheels for my porsche(I wish!) I will accept getting nothing till my colleagues who do the same work as I do, get paid as much as I do. Much company communication in 2001 was centred on giving A scales for CNs as it was not such a cost as they had already saved money on B scales as FOs. How things change! So in 2009 B scalers will only be 17 YEARS behind us.

Captain TOGA et al. I made a post 2 months ago that I was 'encouraged' to remove. Someone on PPRUNE asked about negotiations...to paraphrase myself I said "well we are about to enter into 2 months negotiations where we will be told that we are overpaid, underworked and should be grateful to have a job. In the end they will impose the deal they already had in mind".
Well, if I wasn't Australian I would understand the word IRONY! If that is too obtuse for you my American friend, lets just say that apparently you are overpaid - not sure about underworked!

I voted NO in the GC recommendation...I will vote NO in the vote. My No vote is a futile vote but just because prison rape is inevitable doesn't mean I have to supply the vaseline! It still sends a message of non complicity to our paymasters.

I have advised the GC that should this be 'recommended' by the GC I am no longer a GC member and so for the few of you that voted for me for next term, thanks, but no thanks. This may sound contradictory - but I have the utmost respect for my colleagues whom I have voted against. Thats the wonder of democracy! They believe what they believe, I believe what I believe - obviously very strongly.

Just remember - RA65 will happen (eventually) anyway due to anti discrimination. DEFO(UFO 08) will be offered in spite of us. The only things we can vote against are our payrises and removal of the FACA. Of course if the vote fails CX could always fire the 47(approx) ASL guys that ensure the existence of the FACA and then we would have no choice over flying the freighter and being rostered under the freighter rostering practices.

Be pragmatic and vote for the payrise/no FACA or be idealistic and reject what has been offered- your choice. My choice is already made but then I have had a little longer to consider all the facts.

BusyB

10th Aug 2007, 16:19

NC,
A couple of points.
A-Scale 1992. There was a payrise with COS 94 and then a huge paycut with COS'99. Are you sure of your figures.
If the GC recommend the package it gives the entire membership the opportunity to say NO. I feel that is why CX want to be able to blame the GC when that vote happens. If the GC don't recommend it the package won't be offered. I guess the AOA could still run the vote though.
Wouldn't that be interesting!!!:}
It seems to me that the most important item is that the membership votes, preferably for/against the package but second best would be to go through the motions (not 1st choice because some would change their vote because it wouldn't affect them).

2 cents

10th Aug 2007, 16:19

What a complete insult. The cumulative cost savings and productivity increases squeezed out of the aircrew over the last 13 years are massive. Good thing we waited until the very end to talk about pay! "Don't worry, we'll talk about pay later". Gee, that was worth the wait and everything else we gave away in the meantime!

The problem is, enough is NEVER enough for this company. After all we've given, now was the time to get a bit back due to the huge loses in purchasing power we've all suffered in recent years due to high inflation and unfavorable currency flucuations. This along with pilot shortages and record profitability for the company should be the time for this to be addressed. This pathetic offer gives CX everything they want in exchange for basically nothing. In fact, if you could put a dollar cost on all the aspects of this package including completely rectifying their Freighter fiasco overnight, I'm sure there is a huge cost SAVINGS in it for them. Nice.

No, No, NO!

Five Green

10th Aug 2007, 16:37

A large part of the decision surrounds age 65.

So the question is how long would it take the Hong Kong government to impose legislation requiring the continuation of employment to 65 ?

IMHO it will take years. Those things move slowly to say the least.

So there is no rush to negotiate something before it is imposed. Other than by the management of course.

What was the result of the age discrimination case involving the Cabin Crew ? Has the co. extended all cabin crews COS ?

Standing by.

backspace

11th Aug 2007, 01:16

For those on a basing that will have no choice but to accept COS08 consider this:
Assuming a AUS DEFO takes 12 years to command
TOTAL EARNINGS 12 YEARS
COS99 AUD 1741620
COS08 AUD 1637136

Difference AUD 104484

ADD Difference between Yr 6 SFO and Yr1 & 2 CAPT Salary
48804
52944

Total out of pocket over 12 years AUD$206232

Only looked at DEFO for AUS but quite possibly a S/O would be worse off.

BScaler

11th Aug 2007, 01:20

Five Green

You bring up a very good counterpoint to those who say 'RA65 and DEFO are going to happen anyway so this vote is just about pay and ASL'.

The glaring fact, as you say, is that cabin crew are not being given the same option to work to age 65 at this time. Therefore, attempts to present RA65 as fait accompli are misrepresentations of the truth.

Those that say '...it is going to happen anyway, there is nothing that we can do about it, so you better just vote for it...' are being mischevious. It is an argument that has been shown, historically, to be false. Here are some examples:

First Housing Agreement - voted down despite assertions by Murray Gardiner that '...the Company will throw their toys out of the cot if this doesn't pass; they will do what they want anyway; industrial relations will suffer irreparably if this does not pass...'

The subsequent Housing Agreement, the one we have today, represents an improvement on the original agreement. The Company did not throw their toys out of the cot, they did not simply impose an agreement on the aircrew community, and industrial relations did not suffer, (although it could be argued that they were at an all time low after the 49er debacle anyway).

DEFO Agreement - voted down by a landslide, despite assertions by Steve Turner that '...the Company can do whatever it wants with respect to offering new joiners any contract they choose...'

The fact is that new joiner DEFOs to the passenger fleet ever since, have been joining on CoS 99 provisions and they can thank the AOA membership for voting down the DEFO deal. The Company did not simply offer new joiners a contract of their choosing, they respected the comprehensive outcome of the vote.

It is true that DEFO freighter pilots have also been recruited on inferior terms over this time period, but I believe that they should be employed under passenger terms anyway since the Company would like to see all pilots fly passenger and freighter aircraft. Precedent for this situation exists, since this is exactly what occurred before a separate freighter company was created.

We should not agree to lesser conditions for future colleagues just to help the Company out of a situation they themselves created.

This second attempt to pass a DEFO agreement, though deficient, represents an improvement on that originally tabled.

If that which is negotiated is simply going to happen anyway, then why negotiate in the first place? Why have a vote on the proposal? Why seek approval for it?

My view is that we do have an opportunity to have a say on the subject. We can influence our future careers, (and that of our future colleagues), by the stance we take today on these issues. And I believe that the Company will listen to the result of the vote on this agreement, (should there be one), and the more comprehensive the vote one way or the other, the more carefully they will listen.

BScaler

11th Aug 2007, 01:38

westcoastcapt

you wrote:

In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.

With respect, it has been 14 years, (say it slowly and appreciate the fullness of what you are saying), since the introduction of B-Scales. We have still not reached parity with A-Scales. The '...protect A-Scales at all costs and bring B up to A...' argument has not worked. It has run its course. Time for another approach.

How about '...aim for parity between A and B Scales and then move forward in unity with one another...'? I believe we would be more of a united force and would achieve better results for all concerned if this were to come to pass. (Actually I believe it would also be better for the Company as well, and consider their 'divide and conquer' strategy to be short-sighted, and in the long term, counter-productive.) And now, at a time when our A-Scale colleagues stand to gain 10 bonus years of employment, appears to be the most appropriate time to aim for it.

Note that I am just aiming at pay scales here - not Provident Fund, Travel Fund, Travel Benefits, Retirement Travel Benefits, as well as Medical and Dental Benefits, all of which are better CoS than what B-Scale colleagues enjoy.

Many fair-minded A-Scale colleagues agree with what I propose here, and I believe it has been put to the Company. I am not being inflamatory when I propose this, westcoastcapt, I truly believe it to be an attainable and logical move to make, and I would welcome support for it from the A-Scale community.

jobe

11th Aug 2007, 02:00

B-scaler,yours are the most measured,accurate & sensible posts in all of the Fragrant Harbour.We thank you.

I woke up this morning hoping the nightmare wasn't reality.Well,it is. The AOA has negotiated;-
-a 30% payrise for post 55 A-scalers
-what amounts to a few extra annual increments for B-scale captains
-a paycut for everyone else who's promotion prospects are affected,the irony being that the more junior you are the worse your promotion prospects are affected by extending the retirement age.

Those who have got the most will get even more.Those that have the least will get even less.

I am trying to get my inferior B-scale brain around all of this but it is just not big enough.Can someone do it for me?

oriental flyer

11th Aug 2007, 02:14

ACMS : Believe it or not I do not have a Porsche or other fancy car I drive an old wreck . I do not own a rolex but a Seiko watch , And yes I see the effect that inflation is having on my salary so please before you fly off the handle and think that all A scalers are greedy , perhaps try to understand that when we arrived in HK there was one salary scale and an expectation that that renumeration would keep pace with inflation. Not so ! along came B scales and all it's inherent problems. Should we have rejected it , with 20 20 hindsight yes . But the companies position was and still is they have the right to offer market rates. If pilots accept that salary, they will come and work here. I have yet to see you complain about the freighter pay or conditions which are much worse than yours. Do not be jealous of someone with more than you . Work to bring your salary to the same level for the same job instead.

B Scaler : I would happily forego 2% if I thought that it would give all B scales A scale salaries .. But I can assure you that it will not . So if it is offered I will take it and fight for equality later. We have rejected pay rises before and lived to regret it . So take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose . Learn from past mistakes and do not continue to make the same ones over and over.

However before I am attacked from all sides . Why are we even voting on this deal at all. It sucks for every one , I do not need RA65 right now the company does , what I want is better working conditions for everyone. Sit on this there is no rush . The company needs RA 65 or it would not be offering A scales . They need pilots and given a few more months that need is going to get a lot bigger . I think that there is a lot more room for an improved offer if the pressure due to a pilot shortage increases.

jobe

11th Aug 2007, 02:46

Oriental Flyer, so what do you do with the extra $1m+ per year? Where do you shop? Harrods? Fenwicks??

In general,but there are exceptions,the A-scaler is genetically programmed to not give a flying f**k about anything or anybody except itself. You have to understand this because it is coming soon to a flightdeck near you. Next time you hear one bitching about lack of payrises ask them about their $7.47 per share CX share options.(remember them?they love to keep quiet about these)

Freighter pilots have the option to move to the pax fleet right? so eventually they end up on the same conditons & pay as all other non-A-scale.
You will encounter all manner of A-scale smokescreens. Beware & stand your ground.

Ex Douglas Driver

11th Aug 2007, 02:56

Officers will have a one-off opportunity for a one way transfer to CoS '08 during the period between 1st November 2007 and 21st December 2007. Those who make such an election will transfer to CoS '08 effective 1st January 2008.

Officers who transfer to CoS '08 may elect to retain their current "A", "B" or Freighter Basic Salary Scales and for those under 55, the applicable Green Pages as well, if these are deemed to be better.

All Based Officers will automatically transfer to CoS '08 in the future if they are working in a Base Area that transfers to "on shore" status.

Hypothetically;
I'm an SO and want to "protect" my access to bypass pay by remaining on COS99 while still in HKG, but want to go on a base in the future.

The timeline quoted above seems to suggest that there's only one window of opportunity to change to COS08. Is this a case of sign over now, or can you go on a base on COS99? Is the intention to stop those still on COS99 from being able to go on a base, due to not being on the new COS?

BScaler

11th Aug 2007, 03:29

oriental flyer

You wrote:
I would happily forego 2% if I thought that it would give all B scales A scale salaries .. But I can assure you that it will not . So if it is offered I will take it and fight for equality later. We have rejected pay rises before and lived to regret it . So take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose .

If you were, in fact, to be happy to forgo a 2% pay rise, (and we are just talking productivity-based HDP here, not basic salary), so as to apply it to B-Scale salaries, this would undeniably have the effect of helping B-Scales up on the way to A-Scale levels. Consider the goodwill you would generate from your 1700 junior colleagues if the 400-strong A-Scale community backed this proposal, and were seen to be backing it.

I would applaud your pragmatism and vision if, (like some of your A-Scale colleagues I know also prepared to do the same), your offer was genuine.

From where I stand, the loss that A-Scalers would suffer in giving up a pitiful 2% HDP rise to help out their junior colleagues, pales in comparison with the gain that the A-Scale community may stand to receive from an extra 10 years employment.

May I ask though, how you would propose to 'take it and fight for equality later...' or, as you put it elsewhere in your post 'take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose...'? I would like you to elaborate on this. '14 years' says that these are empty words.

Please do not think of this as a personal 'attack' but rather as an opportunity to further healthy discussion on this subject. I believe that we should try to walk a mile in the other person's shoes to try to understand their position. You cannot deny that you have had the best years here at Cathay, oriental flyer, and stand to gain 10 more of them. How about genuinely thinking, for a second, in the interests of unity, of those in a less fortunate position. Would you be prepared to do that?

Here is an illustration for you. You'll see elsewhere in my posts that I believe the DEFO portion of this agreement to be unpalatable, even though it represents an improvement on that tabled some time ago. Why would I even be interested in the DEFO portion of this agreement, and why would I take an interest in it's provisions when it does not immediately affect me in the slightest?

The reason I take an interest is that I believe it to be the responsibility of the more senior aircrew to look out for their junior colleagues, particularly in an environment where one is not encouraged to put one's head above the parapet when there are upgrades on the horizon, and tools such as 'Category B' to prevent or delay those upgrades. (Just talk to Murray Gardiner about his brush with 'Category B' prior to command when he was AOA President as a Senior First Officer.)

In return for being a faithful steward of this responsibility, we stand to gain a more united aircrew body. Read: 'a happier place to work' or 'better prospects for overall improvements in conditions' or even 'an aircrew body more prepared to contribute to the success of the Company' - or even all three combined. Now this is what I would see as payback for taking an interest in the plight of those more junior to me. And in that way, I am a selfish person, because this is the type of place in which I want to work, and it is what I will work towards.

Do I have a naive sense of unattainable utopia? Possibly. But one thing is for certain, if we do not even try to strive for unity, simply surrendering to cynical personal gain instead, then it will never happen.

oriental flyer

11th Aug 2007, 04:27

Jobe: If there were no A scale positions would you be so angry . Flippant Comments such as the ones you made in your post do little to close the gap and engender sympathy for our B scale pilots. In fact you do your B scale fraternity a great deal of harm by attacking the A scale salary . I would like to remind you that you came to HK fully aware of the offered salary and accepted the position so do not attack those who were lucky enough to obtain a better deal by virtue of arriving in HK at an earlier time . TO say that freighter pilots get the chance to join the pax fleet so their reduced conditions do not matter shows that you do not care about them , they are still losing out for 3 years and may not wish to transfer to HK. So if you are looking for sympathy and support do not attack those on A scales.

B scaler :

Yes I would be prepared to forego 2% of HDP if it would uplift B scale salaries but comments like those from Jobe make it very hard to convince the majority of fellow A scalers to think the same way . Your arguments are well thought out and very reasonable

SIC

11th Aug 2007, 04:37

It seems to me the only thing to do is to reject the offer and then drag the whole thing out for as long as possible. As a strategy this will put pressure on the company to better the offer.
A few A scalers about to retire may lose out if this drags on for many more months - but everybody else hopefully stand to gain??

A No vote purely for this reason is the way to go methinks.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the majority of us - especially the younger guys who make up the future of the company - are being shafted like this.

jobe

11th Aug 2007, 05:39

Mr OF,you do the A-scale cause a great dis-service by trying to plead hardship on their behalf.(grocery prices? really?)
I fought against ASL in the mid 90's without success.Did you? Probably not if it didn't affect your promotion. The point is that eventually there is some light at the end of the tunnel for those fine freighter officers which is not the case for A vs. B.
The only way that the company has been able to continue paying the A-scale to the privileged few is because of the productivity increases brought about by those that are not on it.To cap it all you then get a bigger profit share when there happens to be one.Go figure.

oriental flyer

11th Aug 2007, 05:59

I will not respond to your drivel other than to say that you have a very screwed up view on life

stillalbatross

11th Aug 2007, 08:50

For anybody who is not yet a captain, this is a pay CUT and its a bad one. You will earn less over the course of your career, then be forced to work more years to make up the difference.

can someone give a figure on what it will cost the average HKG based F/O if the age 65 comes in. I had a look at the numbers and came up with just under 8 million HKG in todays money if basically retirements cease for 10 years and you are going to have a 35 to 40 year career at CX. Assuming you will be working until 65.

Obviously it will be a killer if you are a S/O, no movement above means no movement anywhere. As you may be stuck doing 7 to 9 years pegged at the upper S/O level which makes things really tight if you buy a property and get hit for tax on the whole wack.

And since everyone will still be an F/O when the housing stops at 15 years, what are the chances of the AOA negotiating a better deal when you go back to renting as an F/O while waiting a few more years for command.

Rice Pudding

11th Aug 2007, 10:20

Guys,

It's easy to miss the point here. For the company, this is not about a pay deal. This is about solving their long term crew shortage. We simply gave them a viable method to negotiate this in, and they ran with the ball.

Here's a few truths:

They are not favouring A scalers. Look at it from their perspective. They need pilots, and they need them now. The easiest solution is to extend the retirement age, and yes, it happens to be A scalers that form that group. Many A scalers are C and T, and most will stay on for another 10 years. Maintaining their current pay and even offering a small rise is chicken-feed in order secure such a large group of pilots.

DEFO is another easy and fast way to crew new airplanes. The sticking point here ( as with other items ) is that they want us to endorse it for them. They can then say that it was ratified by the members, and they are seen to maintain harmonious crew relations.

B scalers are easy to deal with. The company doesn't need to offer most of them a pay rise of any consequence. The B scale F/O's are not experienced enough to leave for other airlines ( they'd be there already otherwise) , and those that are will be close to command, and will get a pay rise then. The B scale captains will get a pay rise when they move into C and T.

Obviously we made the mistake when we allowed the pay talks to evolve into conditions of service talks.

Fenwicksgirl

11th Aug 2007, 10:40

Too true pudding boy!!! Manning levels are the key concern that all airlines have today. Cathay will look at the short term solutions which they have in this offer. We will either endorse it or turn it down, the pay offer to them is just a carrot dangle in the hope we fall for it!!
Vote yes for the pay rise as a short term solution....ie until they get it right, and then vote no for this other crap.....oh thats right we cant do that can we!!!

Glass Half Empty

11th Aug 2007, 10:47

Notwithstanding the fact that time to command will be delayed. The top captain band is year 17 as a senior captain. Added to the 2 years as a captain we have 19 years of increments. If age 65 is achieved then a fair number of captains will achieve year 17 some time before their retirement age. This company has a track record of not extending bands, take the case of the flight engineers on the classic that have been frozen on year 10 for some considerable years effectively losing money each year due to inflation.

There needs to be some guarantee that these bands will be extended to years 25 or whatever before this package is taken further.

Don't assume it will be sorted in the future!!

jetset

11th Aug 2007, 12:41

I think it is difficult for anyone to support a vote for an extension which by all accounts is a significant advantage to only a few. As a B scaler, I can never achieve the post 55 contract the A scalers can. Their initial contract was to 55, after that surely it should be something attainable by all, particularly in the light of our colleagues accepting extensions on the freighter scale.

I suspect there is a limited pot of money available for salaries and for it to be dished out to A scale extendies at the expense of bringing the B scale up to parity is surley difficult for the majority (of pilots not necessarily AOA members!) to accept and I think inequitable to say the least.

I support the right of people to extend but NOT at the expense of others and at a payscale that is not achievable by all.

Apart from that the rest of the deal is crap. It remains in my interest to delay the onset of the RA65 for as long as possible.

CYRILJGROOVE

11th Aug 2007, 12:59

Oriental Flyer, well said

I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding those who illogically attack A scalers. The real enemy here is the management who created B C D and F scales, ASL, Cathay Freighters and the associated lower scales with opportunities for junior crew to take commands on Freighters way out of seniority provided the crew do it on the cheap.

The GC have yet to let us know their thoughts on the proposal yet these volunteers still have ill informed accusations by members (and cheap non members) who cannot seek out the facts. Case in point, some drongo accusing them of lying about the percentages, NC and the team just do not play that game, albeit that any percentages quoted are “Perfect World” scenarios due to the tiered HDP element of the proposal and unachievable in the real world.

It is a fact that in many jurisdictions we operate in age discrimination legislation prevents 1. Age to determine when to retire and 2. Offering reduced salary/conditions based on age. Age retirement is basically controlled by licensing authorities and not contractually enforceable if legally challenged, and it will be implemented regardless of this vote.

Cathay know this and have capitulated to the inevitable reluctantly, despite some crew accepting B scale or Freighter pay post 55 making this a long drawn out episode. It would be unworkable to have A scale post 55 on bases with the legislation, and B scale in HKG where the majority of the C&T system resides with legislation on the horizon. It will tick me off just as much as it does the FO’s to see those retreads get back onto A scale but in the overall scheme of things we must not be consumed by these back door winners, particularity the so called quitters and re joiners.

If you peel away all the dressing (does not take long!) on this proposal the A scalers gain maybe 1% at the cost of losing some Green Page benefits post 55, probably losing more than is gained ultimately. B scalers get various small increases well below expectations especially considering strong profits. Up to a theoretical 14.8% for HKG B scale Captains. Incidentally why accept the loss of travel fund and being forced to the new travel scheme when legislation probably prevents that as well?

So what is wrong with the proposal, many have pointed out we have over the years given productivity with nothing in return, just delaying tactic empty promises. Cost of living and exchange rate factors have reduced disposable income and the Non Captains are going to have to spend longer in the RHS for zero compensation if accepting COS 08. The scales peak out at 17years a point that many Capts are already at. Those scales were constructed based on age 55 retirement. The same is true for FO scales, more increments are needed along with some bigger numbers on the BASIC SALARY.

I would gladly forfeit the 1% if all Captains are paid the 14 year old A scales and if the company wants to cancel the freighter agreement I would be happy with that if they jettison the freighter pay and the freighter commands were allocated using true seniority. Management created the Freighter fiasco; they have to unravel the mess. The DEFO proposal still comes up short in the overall dollar earnings scenario.

On balance a NO vote probable from Cyril

BusyB

11th Aug 2007, 13:02

Jetset,

Do you honestly think CX wanted tp pay A-Scales after 55?

They must hate it. The truth is they have realised from trheir lawyers that they will have to pay it on most bases and that they have to change the RA. The alternative is to still have 55 in Hong Kong only which would mean the bases would be shut off for years to anyone from HKG. It wasn't part of a "pot" of money to be negotiated. It was pragmatically saving legal fees.:ugh:

jetset

11th Aug 2007, 13:11

Whilst there may be a legal case to answer if it was introduced without a vote, that would not be the case if it was agreed i.e. if we vote for a combined payscale past 55. In which case I would be a lot more supportive.

I suspect that none of us are particularly supportive of any of this though. It is a divisive deal at a time when we should be uniting the group.

One payscale, make it A.

ACMS

11th Aug 2007, 13:46

May I remind some of you A scalers that a few of us B+ scalers will suffer a 5% PAY CUT apon turning 55 through the loss of Travel fund. How do you justify that hey?
Meanwhile you A scale buggers that thought you were retiring at 55 on your nice big P funds get to keep your considerable A scale salary for another 10 years and take out your P fund.
geeesshhh
Not a A scale V B scale debate?????????? how else do you expect us to see it.

Guru

11th Aug 2007, 15:18

Paying us peanuts in return for 3+ more years as an FO?

Is the company so confident that they would get enough crew for all the new aircrafts that they offer us this pathetic amount? With the current pay, or even the proposed new pay, can they recruit fast enough to keep pace with the planned expansion?

It's funny that with the dire recruitment response in north America they are (non)offerring f*** all.

:=

Sumo VomZeus

11th Aug 2007, 15:54

Say no! The company is in no position to negotiate!! The worldwide pilot shortage is here and now! We do not have to take such a ****e deal unless YOU agree to it! This is not just about keeping people here..... this is about attracting quality new joiners. Would you come to live in HK knowing what you do since you've been here? Sit on our hands and wait for a real offer!!

Five Green

11th Aug 2007, 16:07

I am not sure why we should be considering the possible legislated age 65 retirement age.

IF and it is a big IF they force the co. into age 65 ,it will have to be on whatever scale people are on. The reason being, to lower scales after retirement is legislated would be deemed age discrimination. ie you cannot pay someone less to do a job because they are older. The current extendees may even have a legal argument that they were forced to do just that.

So bearing in mind the age 65 should come with the current scales (ie legally the co. should pay A to A scalers and B to B scalers etc.) What we are agreeing to is :

1) reduce the earnings of New DEFOs

2) accept a insignificant pay raise. In some cases N. America NONE !

3) Fly the freighter (with the freighter crewing rules and patterns)

4) Agree to work for the same dollar value with no inflationary adjustment for the near future.

IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THE WE HAVE TO VOTE NO NO NO!! We get very very little and give up ALOT long before we have to.

Some suggestions :

1) If we are going to fly freighters it should be on PAX cos and crewing rules. However as long as there are still ASL captains there still exists a possibility of safety issues with crewing and therefore the freighter crewing agreement is still necessary.

2) Stop the insulting practise of pay increases for some and not for all. At some point we all deserve a raise regardless of how far our money goes in our home country.

3) remove the requirement to go on COS 08 (or whatever it ends up being 09,10 etc) when a base is forced into 65.

4) make by pass pay a written policy with guidelines and time frames written down. ie You will be assessed within 1 year of our expected need for a command course. or better yet, the co. should assess a guaranteed number of pilots per year until those disadvantaged et their command (ok dreaming a little there !!)

Other than that there is nothing wrong !!!!

One more note on the age thing. The current practice of extending (not withstanding the pay scale on which the extension is given, and the picking and choosing) , could be argued meets the legal requirement to offer age 65 retirement.

WHAT HAPPENED TO JUST GETTING THE PAY RISE WE DESERVE WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED ? WHY THE FEAR MONGERING RE: AGE 65 ?

So what is the rush ??????????

Jose Jimenez

11th Aug 2007, 17:08

opportunities for junior crew to take commands on Freighters way out of seniority
I would be happy with that if...the freighter commands were allocated using true seniority
If you understood "true seniority" you would realise that the only time someone gets command "out of seniority" at Cathay is when a pilot senior to him is held back because of Cathay's assessment system.
Most airlines have different schedules, bases, and rates of pay for different aircraft. When someone takes a lesser-paying, harder-working command on another aircraft because someone senior to him chooses NOT to take that command, it is not considered taking the command "early," or "out of seniority." It is a PERFECT example of seniority in action.
This misunderstanding is just another wedge which divides our pilot group. Let's stop talking this way.

Westcoastcapt

11th Aug 2007, 17:22

What seems to escape many of you is that CX will only respond to people leaving. It's quite simple, really. Management doesn't care whether you are upset when you head off to work, just the fact that you are going off to work. But, they will take notice if they cannot recruit or you leave and go elsewhere. The only reason there were freighter salaries is because they could easily fill all the B scale slots. Let's remember that those who joined in April 93 said they would do our jobs for less money. And those who joined ASL in 95 said they would again do the same job for even lesser money.

The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.

The hotel is full of recruits so their present package is obviously sufficient!
Again, these DEFO recruits are saying that they are willing to join at an even lesser level. They are doing to many of you on the B / ASL scales that you did to us on the A scale.

So what can you do? Essentially nothing. Again, if it is that bad, why are you still here? Or better yet, why did you join in the first place!!!!

cxflyer

11th Aug 2007, 19:24

Well said WestCoast capt. We were undercut in the past, now others are being undercut. There is only one answer. vote NO! In my view we have been failed by the GC again! How the hell did this become a CoS review? THAT has never gone our way. As for us flying the freighters, NO. They created this situation they can figure it out themselves. There is not enough in this for any of us to vote yes. Lets vote no and then sit back. None of us should be in any rush.
ACMS do us all a favour and quit you whiner.

Westcoastcapt

11th Aug 2007, 19:52

Well said, CXflyer. I agree wholeheartedly. The real enemy it seems are ourselves. Vote NO. it's simple!!!

cpdude

11th Aug 2007, 20:10

Don't bitch...don't gripe...just VOTE NO!

I hope the GC votes NO but if not...make sure you do!

Nuf said!

Glass Half Empty

11th Aug 2007, 21:23

Every time I look at this crock of poo I see something else that grips my sh!tter.

Officers on a freighter extension will complete a freighter commitment, with freighter service prior to 1 Jan 2008 counting towards that commitment. Transfer back to the passenger fleet will be in accordance with the Freighter Basings Policy. Officers who are held on the Freighter Aircraft beyond their commitment period will be eligible for Integration Deferment Pay. Upon completion of their Freighter commitment, such Officers will return to their original Salary Scale and accrued increment.

So 14 or so guys on the classic, not sure how many on the 744F who were on a little old extension post 55 to top up the old provident fund (100s of thousands) can now go back to A scales and bump more B scale FOs down the list some more. This is a serious joke. If they were that happy to come over to the freighter in the first place and accept freighter year 10 salary then they should stay on the freighter until 65 on year 12 scale unless of course they can persuade their old A scale colleagues in management to put up the scales a few years.

Get real

Tackoo

11th Aug 2007, 21:25

What are your thoughts on the ASL integration?

Will they all have to come over in order to lose FACA?

Heard some of these guys will not want to come over to CX since they will be forced off their bases to more junior, east coast bases, when they join at the bottom.

cpdude

11th Aug 2007, 22:22

I don't really care if ASL stays or not but I am not willing to get rid of the FACA. Unfortunately, if ASL goes so does the FACA! So....I say no to ASL joining us.

2 cents

11th Aug 2007, 23:39

Westcoastcapt,

Quote
"The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.

The hotel is full of recruits so their present package is obviously sufficient!
Again, these DEFO recruits are saying that they are willing to join at an even lesser level. They are doing to many of you on the B / ASL scales that you did to us on the A scale."

Give it a rest will ya. There is no shortage of A scalers willing to go fly clapped out old freighters around for 7-10 days at a time on B scale extensions. Plain and simple! In fact the irony is some of the most vocal "I never would have joined on B-Scale" crowd mysteriously don't feel that way anymore at 55. As previous posts have mentioned, it is from a legal perspective on the company's behalf. Let's try to be productive here please.

I think the whole deal is pathetic, and as usual skewed very, very heavily in the company's favor. I can't say that I was expecting a miracle, but this is just ridiculous.

No.

1500smooth

11th Aug 2007, 23:59

Can someone please explain to me why I would vote (or someone think I would vote) for an A scale pay rise. A scale ends at 55……Any day worked past 55 is an EXTENSION of contract and therefore needs to be renegotiated. A scale past 55 is a FAT pay rise!! If you could not possibly work for B scale money and all other conditions then great leave! I acknowledge the requirement to increase the retirement age but I will NOT be voting to extend someone on conditions I can never achieve.
A scale are asking B scale to vote them in a pay rise….what the!!!!

slabslab

12th Aug 2007, 00:38

there are some very well thought out comments on this thread

Shame so much infighting however...

Someone posted a thread early on suggesting action. A NO vote I'm afraid will do very little. I have already spoken to a "few" quite in favour of this proposal.

USE YOUR SICK DAYS, NO G DAY CALL OUTS, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE

and

just what will happen after the NO vote, and the second

What do we do then??? - We NEED TO GET TOGETHER :ugh:

BScaler

12th Aug 2007, 01:15

westcoastcapt

You wrote:

Let's remember that those who joined in April 93 said they would do our jobs for less money. And those who joined ASL in 95 said they would again do the same job for even lesser money.

The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.

I must respectfully take issue with what you wrote and put forward a B-Scale perspective on this one.

Firstly, B-Scalers that accepted employment, joined on that deal because that was all that was on offer at the time. The reason that was all that was on offer was because the AOA GC representing the Cathay aircrew body at the time, allowed the Company to introduce them in return for a promise that A-Scales, as they became known, would remain untouched. A false promise as it turned out.

Secondly, the reality is that there are A-Scale colleagues of ours, as we speak, accepting less than B-Scale conditions on which to extend. A-Scale colleagues who do so, accept it because this is all that is on offer at this time.

The contrast between the two points, is that B-Scales have been in existence for 14 years without reaching the level of A-Scales, (and I am just talking remuneration here, not the plethora of other better conditions, the most significant being the A-Scale Provident Fund), whereas those A-Scale colleagues that have extended on less than B-Scales, will remarkably have their A-Scale salaries reinstated and be allowed to work an extra 10 years.

Can you see the disparity here, see the logic that makes it so, and sense the disbelief of the B-Scale community on appreciating this? The divisiveness that this creates, inevitably leads to some heated outbursts on the subject. This illustrates my point, when I say that we should strive for unity for the future.

Accepting a DEFO agreement along the lines of that which is proposed, would be to open up a similar can of worms in later years. If the Company wants to ditch ASL and take advantage of the synergies that a greater pool of pilots would create, then new joiner DEFOs, passenger or freighter, should join on passenger terms. Existing freighter captains and FOs should transfer to passenger terms. Precedent exists, since this is what used to happen before the creation of ASL when Cathay aircrew flew both passenger and freighter aircraft. We should not be made to pay for a mess that the Company created in the first place.

Accepting extensions to A-Scales, (especially bearing in mind from a B-Scaler’s point of view, that the package allows for comfortable retirement at age 55), to the probable detriment of junior colleagues’ promotion prospects, and without any protection along these lines, is not helpful.

There is a long way to go as far as what will happen with CoS 08 itself. But as I have said before, if we can walk a mile in each others shoes and understand each others position, then we will have a better chance of attaining something we can all live with, and hopefully it will result in an agreement structured toward unification for the good of all of us and the future aircrew body.

BScaler

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 01:43

TO THE GENERAL COMMITTEE:
-I propose an immediate 15% payrise for the B scale officers across the board. (not including the 2% increase in HDP )
-A scale get the 1.8% increase in HDP
-Apon reaching 55 all A scale officers come back to B scale for their respective years of service. ( I guess that would be SCapt year 17? ) and get the same COS as B scale officers ( staff travel, medical, housing, LOL, education etc etc )
99% of all A scale have already accepted an extension on far less than that, considering what they have already fallen over themselves to accept I see this as quite a win.
But most importantly it gives the much needed payrise to B scale.
I THINK THIS MAY BE A LOT MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THE B- SCALERS.

XCX-SOHAPPY

12th Aug 2007, 01:50

did anybody hear Tony Penny just became a Knight?

pill

12th Aug 2007, 02:34

The only good thing about this is, it's got me thinking about rejoining the AO(bunch of kunts)A. This cannot be called anything other than an insult to B scale FO's.

Dusk till Prawn

12th Aug 2007, 03:11

Watch this space .....

A scalers cash out of prov fund and take a base...this also screws new captains..

Stay under old COS to keep bypass pay? CX wont asses us so we will never even see one dollar of bypass anyway....

Gee I feel I am coming down with the Flu? any one feel the same?

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 03:20

So many of the extendees thought the deal of extending on B scales was good, they get their PF at 55 and this salary was more icing on the cake for a few more years.
Well they must be tingling with anticipation with what they are about to get, 8 more years on A scale.........wow wee

I guess we are lucky the AOA didn't arrange backpay to age 55 for those already extended.:=

electricjetjock

12th Aug 2007, 03:26

ACMS:rolleyes:

You need to go and lie down in a darkened room for a while and calm down, you are starting to spout absolute rubbish with some of your "facts".

Night Watch

12th Aug 2007, 03:27

pill and other non AOA members

I'm certainly not a fan of the AOA GC at the moment (especially if they recommend this sh!t deal), but I am a believer in having a voice regarding my CoS.

If you join the AOA today you will be a member in time to vote..... if you don't, please don't complain about your CoS ever again.

Apple Tree Yard

12th Aug 2007, 03:29

What a complete bunch of immature, self-defeating, envious silly buggers. This must be the ONLY airline in the world that employs pilots that ACTIVELY seek to bring down the top level of pay and benefits within that airline! Regardless of how 'envious' we are of the A scale, to seek it's demise is the height of career expectation suicide. To hopefully live in the Penthouse one day,...there actually has to BE a penthouse to move into....

In case most of your silly little minds haven't figure it out yet, the A scalers are not the problem...the company is the problem. They are rolling waist-deep in cash caused by record revenues and record profits. The only hope we as B-scalers have of ever seeing better pay and conditions is to make sure that such things continue to exist at the airline. Go ahead and bring down the A-scale. What will you be left with then? An airline that has now established an even LOWER top level of salary scales. In addition, you will then all become, by defualt, the 'new A-scale'. What do you think management will seek to do with your pay and benefits when you are now considered the 'top-scale'.

The company has more than enough money to both pay for the A-scalers to extend, AND increase the B-scale on a schedule that merges with A at a defined point in the future. I find it fascinating that so many of you seem to have turned your anger on the one group who's existence provides a living example of what the job should pay. I weep for the future of this airline, and it's pilots careers if so many of the junior officers seem to think that helping the management to bring down the top scale will somehow ensure the betterment of their own futures. Madness on a truly epic scale.

As a B-scaler, I will be voting NO. I will however INSIST on any further package offering both the A-scale extensions, and a FAIR deal for the B's.

Remember, it is not a 'zero-sum' game. You don't have to take from one group to give to another. The only people who want to see that happen is the management. Perhaps a few of you could explain why you seem to want to do managements dirty work for them?:ugh:

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 03:31

words escape me.
99% of the A scalers accepted absolute crap deals to extend, now they are going to be given the world and a bit more.
Why do you think we are a little miffed.
idiot

electricjetjock: oh really? which FACTS have I got wrong my A scale friend?

BScaler

12th Aug 2007, 03:34

I would encourage any of you able to do so, to post your comments, for or against, on the AOA website under Members Area - Forums.

You can have your say, even while the GC is deciding whether or not to endorse Cos 08 and so put this agreement to the membership for a vote.

Not surprisingly, the AOA website is actually getting a few hits at the moment.

BScaler

cpdude

12th Aug 2007, 03:50

The FACA is a NO go item for me but now with the news of "on shore" basing in North America being imminent in two years or less I am GONE!

Wonder what all those Canadians on a US base are going to do when they work for Cathay USA and they DON'T have a green card! Yikes!:eek:

Resume is being updated and I will be gone ASAP. It may take 3-6-9 or even 12 months but the decision is clear my future is NOT with CX.

See Ya CX!:D

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 04:07

Oh and guys when the A scalers bi:mad: and moan about the pay cut they were forced into, ask them how much the Share Options they were given at $7.47 per share are worth now. I seem to recall that they only had to double in value to negate the pay cut?

Maybe a wise A scaler can enlighten us all?

Apple Tree Yard

12th Aug 2007, 04:14

ACMS....you really are a bit of a sad case aren't you...?

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 04:20

Apple tree man......it appears you are an A scaler, congratulations you are one lucky sob.
Could you answer my last question about the share options please?

Also if you A scalers had anything decent about you then you'd refuse this outlandish offer, and accept B scales to extend. If you accept B scale pay in your contract then there is no legal problem is there?

Oh boo whoo, the company forced me to take A scales, what is a man to do?

Apple Tree Yard

12th Aug 2007, 04:26

ACMS....as in most things, you are once again, WRONG. I am a lowly B-scaler, just like you. I have only been in the company a little over a year. Having previously worked for United, I am at a loss to understand your seemingly pathalogical desire to 'undo' the A-scalers. At United, we ALL took pleasure in seeing ANY increase to the top end of the scale. That was the ONLY guarantee that helped pull all the different pay rates in an upward direction. Why can't you see that the problem is with the management, and THEIR decision to refuse to provide us with a proper pay scale? That is where your anger should be directed. You seem to be a very envious and angry person...not a very healthy way to go through life.

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 04:31

you've been here for 1 year??????????????????????? oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh
After you've been here 14 years as a B scaler seeing the A scalers get given heaven and earth at our expense then you can comment.
Have you bothered to join the AOA? I guess you haven't

Apple Tree Yard

12th Aug 2007, 04:37

...I think the fact that you have been living in HK for 14 years explains why your life seems to revolve around envy and anger. Perhaps you need to pack up and move somewhere...? I worked at United for over a decade, so please don't try and suggest that I don't know what it's like to work in a difficult and unsettled environment. Regardless of the crap we put up with at United, most of us never lost sight of the fact that the managment were the ones who were responsible for the misery caused. The only sentiment I ever felt towards our senior 74 captains was the desire to one day attain that position...with the pay that went with it. What exactly do you aspire to? Oh, joined the AOA after 4 months in the company. Anything else?

ps. my understanding is that most A-scalers went on a base fairly early in their careers, thereby negating the provident fund. Then, in 99 they had their pay and benefits slashed arbitrarily (sign or be fired). I also understand that they have had their pay frozen for almost 10 years? From what I can see, our B-scale salary has had steady rises over that same period of time. Again, focus on the real problem. Your anger is blinding you to the fact that the managment is the place to focus your wrath...

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 04:54

A few A scalers did take a base and took out their P funds, but not more than 40% of them.
A scalers receive annual increments.
B scalers receive annual increments
A scalers were told sign or be fired but were given share options at $7.47, what's CX share price today? double that?
I have always said we should not cut the A scale wage, rather move up to them under the retirement age of 55. This is not going to happen ever, they came here knowing they would retire at 55. In the past 2 years a lot of them have accepted really bad conditions to stay, why? because it was the easy thing to do.
B scales desperately need a payrise, you know it as well as I. what they are offering is a slap on the face at the same time giving the A scalers a huge win for something they never expected to get in a million years, it's been given at YOUR expense. We B scalers are paying for it.
Why has it been put forward?
Well most of the GC are A scale and the GMA has extended on B scales and will reap a small fortune if this passes.

The A scalers did NOTHING to stop B scale in 1993 because they were told "we will not touch your A scale" Thanks fellas, now we take it up the a:mad: again.

Apple Tree Yard

12th Aug 2007, 04:59

...thick as Texas mud you are..

Regardless of how good a deal the A scalers are getting....it has NOTHING to do with what is on offer for the B scale. We need to insist on getting the SAME deal post 55 as the A scale is being offered. There is not some finite pot of money to work with here. The company can pay more if they want to. With the type of small minded mentality you demonstrate, it is no wonder they think that the B scale pilots don't deserve more....

ps. you say that the A scalers came here 'knowing' they would retire at 55. They also had an expectation that the company would not attack their salaries and conditions after going on bases. The reason many of them extend is because they aren't obligated to stop work when YOU think they should. If you wonder why I am so supportive of the A scalers, it's because I saw what happened to my Father when Pan Am went down. It's easy to be critical and cynical about those more senior to you.....right up to the time you are one of the seniors yourself. At United, many of the FO's didn't want the US airlines to extend the retirement age to 65.....at least until we were Captains ourselves....same logic applies here!

Shot Nancy

12th Aug 2007, 05:06

did anybody hear Tony Penny just became a Knight?

You mean a Queen don't you?

cpdude

12th Aug 2007, 05:14

You mean a Queen don't you?

That would not be news!

EdDC3

12th Aug 2007, 05:17

You spineless gits just keep whining here on Pprune. That'll help! You never have nor ever will stand up for a thing and therefore deserve nothing.

Come on over to Oasis if life as a servant to the Swires and your "union" (what a joke!) is becoming too much for you.

10 year extensions to the A scales. LMAO :D

Bwatchful

12th Aug 2007, 05:33

ACMS: you have made a lot of good points over the past few days, but do you realize that you have made 23 posts on this single issue. Myself and others are trying to make sense of all the hype and misinformation that is being tossed around here. If you could focus on one or two key elements of this as yet to be made proposal, your wisdom and experience would be appreciated and helpful.

Westcoastcapt

12th Aug 2007, 05:53

ACMS, stated that the A scale pilots did nothing to stop the arrival of B scale wages in 93.

Amazing, and what drivel! What do you propose we should have done to stop it. Wrestle you down and break your wrist before you signed your contract. I assume that you can read.

CSA

12th Aug 2007, 06:31

Guys, I think it is fairly obvious that this deal is unacceptable to most cx pilots. We are at a crossroads, if we don't at least try to get a better deal, we are as sealing our fates for ever as well as those of our colleagues to follow.

I would normally agree that CX will only take notice of people leaving, but in this case, they have offered a huge pay rise to a group that have repeatedly demonstrated willingness to continue on any terms available. This doesn't make sense. I suspect they believe they can keep the expansion on track simply by keeping the A scalers happy.

But extending the A scalers will only work if they have us on side as well. I think we actually have an opportunity here to influence the deal. I believe we should demonstrate that all B scalers are unified in opposition to tiered pay scales past 55. I am suggesting a very polite but firm letter to the company, with as many B scale signatures as possible indicating that this proposal is simply not on. The actual details could be sorted out by online editing until we get the finished product.

What do you think? We have to do something, this deal is like a thief in the night stealing our futures.

PS I would be proposing a merging of the scales somewhere in the CN increments.

Buzzy

12th Aug 2007, 07:12

CSA, one of the most sensible posts so far!
The only way we will ever get a better deal is by being united. Constant b1tching and finger pointing at each other over who gets more etc serves no-one and is exactly what the company wants. That is one of the reasons they've created so many different scales of pay.
What we need is those who dont think this is a good deal (the majority of us I would think) to say no, and keep saying no until something acceptable is offered.
Come on guys the majority of us are in the same boat, so lets start acting like it.

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 07:45

Actually I have already proposed this "unified" salary scale as an alternative the B scale community might live with in previous posts
basically all B scalers get an immediate 15%+ pay rise + HDP rise
A Scalers get the 1.8% HDP rise
At 55 they come back to the relevant B scale + all the COS benefits. ( a lot better than they all accept for extension now )
This means we meet in the middle.
A win win

CSA

12th Aug 2007, 08:03

Well the fine details can be worked out, I would prefer to doctor the B scales so they merge with A scales at some point. This would mean that the best top scales would be available to all at some point in their career.

What I want to do first, is to check for support for the concept. Is there enough feeling amonst the B scale pilots to get 80 or 90% of them to sign a letter to the company, not a threat, not demanding, not insulting, simply saying we are unitied and we want a light at the end of the tunnel, ie a merge point in the pay scales. I can't see a down side to everyone signing such a letter, but it would have to be all of us (or close to). If we can't get a high percentage to put a signature to a letter, there is no chance of doing anything and we should just capitulate.

Rice Pudding

12th Aug 2007, 08:22

Can I suggest we all band together for a 3 tier strategy:

1. Write to [email protected] and politely tell them you do not support this proposal.

2. Send a circular email to your collegues, telling them you do not support the proposal.

3. If it goes to the vote, then vote NO.

We need to get this back to being a pay negotiation.

404 Titan

12th Aug 2007, 08:26

ACMS

Mate like you I am a “B” scaler but only an FO. I am far from pleased at what has been offered but your shots at “A” scalers will result in a friendly fire incident. While I concede some “A” scalers will jump at this offer, we need to keep everyone onside. United we stand, divided we fall.

Personally I feel the AOA should reject the offer but still put it to a vote. That way it sends a clear message to both the company and the AOA GC that they need to do better, substantially better, especially when it comes back with a resounding “NO” vote.

Regarding retirement age 65. After reviewing contract law from my uni days and getting off the phone to a legal friend of mine that I went to school with we are both of the opinion that if the HK government does introduce age discrimination laws, it won’t make our contracts for retirement age 55 null and void. We all signed our contracts of our own free will so they stand, period. All it does is allow those that want to, to approach the company to up their retirement age to 65 i.e. COS08. I think it is the job of all “B” scalers to try and convince those senior “A” scale colleges that it is in all our interest to reject this offer until the company comes back with a substantially improved one.

The more I think about this the more I am sure the company has deliberately set the cat amongst the pigeons so as to cause division. Gentlemen and women we must refrain from going down this path for if we do it will lead us nowhere.

Night Watch

12th Aug 2007, 08:59

404 Titan

Couldn't agree more..... best thing we can do is vote NO.... sit on our hands and wait.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Interested_Party

12th Aug 2007, 09:14

And if the company does not come back and offer us the 11% pay rises again, yet RA65 still proceeds, then what?

404 Titan

12th Aug 2007, 09:40

Interested_Party

It doesn’t if we don’t change our contracts. Stay on COS99 and you stay on RA55 regardless of what the law is changed to.

stillalbatross

12th Aug 2007, 09:48

I see no-one has mentoned the hit that the S/O's will get. If the age 65 comes in then some of them will do 7 to 9 yrs as S/O's. With a wife and kids thrown in and the mortgage (assuming you don't rent for 10 years) take off tax (40%) and schooling and you have about 15K a month left in your paypacket to cover everything else. Let me repeat that 15K. In the past you held off buying or did it as you approached upgrade to keep your head above the water. Now you'll have to survive for a fair while on your 15k or hold off buying for a large number of years until the upgrade comes around.

Plenty will go to the wall as S/O's and (here's the kicker) eventually leave with a P2X rating that is useless for re-employment.

Can't believe the AOA would so happily let it's newest members suffer so badly. And they want S/O's to sign up?

404 Titan

12th Aug 2007, 10:09

stillalbatross

As a “B” scaler I do remember what it was like trying to survive on a SO’s salary. It wasn’t that long ago for me. I don’t think any of us want to see you whither on the vine either. If you are a AOA member and it comes to a vote you can, like I’m guessing most, vote no. If you aren’t in the AOA then I suggest this is a very good reason for you to join. United we stand, divided we fall. Lets work for the benefit of everyone.

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 10:41

Yes...I apologise to all the A scalers if I offended you.
but............fair suck of the sav boys, you would reap a tremendous benefit while we get nothing more than tiny scraps.

I will actually lose 5% at 55, gee I look forward to it.

FACTS: The company need all of us

We must not accept this first offer.

Bograt

12th Aug 2007, 11:36

"I am suggesting a very polite but firm letter to the company, with as many B scale signatures as possible indicating that this proposal is simply not on."
:eek::eek:
And instantly sign-up for down categorisation - DONT PASS GO, forget f:mad:ing bypass pay, go straight to Cat D for the rest of your short miserable time in CX!!!!

How long have you been subject to Swires management practices???

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 12:43

I don't think a letter would be any better than a VERY POSITIVE 100% NO VOTE

CSA

12th Aug 2007, 13:51

Bograt,

Well, I am for real. But if you don't think its a good idea I respect your opinion (you might want to try reciprocating perhaps). I am eager to hear what you are proposing to do, or should we just adopt the position?

BlunderBus

12th Aug 2007, 14:23

I absolutely love the way the 'package' argument gets diverted away from the real issue and into A-scale slagging.The infantile level of spelling and grammar displayed here also shows many of you up as being a bit thick.I digress.
From the day any of you who are not A-scale joined your package has gone only one way...up.I'd like to point out that the A-scale crews,what few remain,have been on the receiveing end of this company's tactics for nearly 20 years...and in that period their conditions have gone dramatically....down.
For those of you who chose to join CX at a time when we were toe to toe with the company.. thank you for undermining years of effort and millions of dollars spent defending a contract you would have inherited...a fight which cost the careers of 49 of our troops.When you slithered over during the hiring ban or took command slots on the freighter away from the original mainstream f/o's..I didn't hear any whingeing then.Hundreds of freighter inductees had a mighty impact on negotiations 10 years ago to everone's detriment...you gave the company 'cheap crewing space' which they used to eventually screw us all...as we who had seen it all before..knew only too well.
Take a look at a senior A-scale captain who's been here nearly 20 years and left seat for maybe 12-13.He makes $143,000/month...hardly excessive considering where he lives.In recent years his salary was cut 28% in one fell swoop,hours increased from 65 to 84,annual leave diminished by 25%,overtime pay slaughtered,etc etc...I actually think ALL captains based in Hong Kong should be on $143K and that B scale sucks...but, like we all did years ago, you accepted what the company offered at the time(30K/month for f/o's incidentally)...and don't give me any **** about it being much cheaper then...you wouldn't know.
In fact I think most of you on this forum know bugger all anyway...certainly none of the history of our union contributions supporting the 49-ers...millions...so piss off and slap yourselves on the back for taking a dump on them(after MG forced the issue through to CX's satisfaction by forcing a re-vote)THAT'S why so many senior guys left the union...in PURE DISGUST.
You make it sound like we're all flocking back to vote on the 65 issue when it's already going to happen...morons.Yes i'm leaping with joy at the fact the provident fund will be wiped out,we'll be forced onto a travel scheme like everything else that can be 'amended from time to time'...all for the 'privelege' of hanging around for another 10 years...like we want to anyway.You're bitching about 3 more years as f/o but in fact you'll get 10 more years as captain...and I can tell you that the selfish and self-centered a-scale crews you so stupidly slag off here spent years voting against b scales/freighter pay and millions contesting it...What makes you think any of us would re-join the union to vote this through...take the time to talk to some of the guys...we're all a big fat NO too...we still insist on fighting the company when they table a **** deal that affects everyone.
Obviously A-scale is a vast minority now so you'll be the masters of your own destinies...good luck..give 'em hell.....lets get everyone 'up where they belong' on a square deal.....That's my opinion....and i've been here long enough to have earned it!

Cpt. Underpants

12th Aug 2007, 14:27

Well said that man. Kill the "A" scale and trust me, the target of our "managements" efforts will be whatever is perceived to be at the top of the pile.

BusyB

12th Aug 2007, 14:31

A lot of truths in that Blunderbus.:ok:

oriental flyer

12th Aug 2007, 14:37

ACMS and all those attacking the A scalers. You are doing yourself no favours.
You state that we the A scalers are getting a pay rise at your expense ? well 2% of HDP isn't exactly a pay rise is it ? and it certainly isn't at your expense
.
I wonder if you would be singing a different song if the A scalers got nothing and B scales received say 15% Would you reject the offer because the A scalers had received nothing . I won't hold my breath for an answer on that

The share option you so love shouting about. We had to pay tax on the difference between 7.47 and the vested option price. Many of us sold at $ 12- 14 and no it came nowhere close to compensating the loss of salary since 99 . So get off your soap box and stop complaining. Life isn't fair deal with it . I didn't like taking pay cuts or working harder for less money but I had 2 choices deal with it or leave . I chose to stay and deal with it. If you don't like your package you have the same 2 choices .

I came here when A scales were the only scale . I signed on expecting that my salary would keep pace with inflation. It hasn't . You knew the salary scale when you were offered the job and took it . Yes I'll grant you it is a lousy offer but be mad at those who made it , not those of us who have suffered nothing but pay cuts since

and by the way an extension on present salary is not a pay rise no matter which way you cut it

I have to say I am getting very sick and tired of your rants so if you want us to vote NO then stop attacking us . I would vote No to support the aircrew body against a bad deal, but from a purely personal perspective for me it is a no brainer . Annoy me enough with your attacks and I will vote for my own best benefit not yours.

Think about it before you lurch into your next rant

Thank you to Apple Tree Yard and west coast Capt for well balanced posts I wish there could be more .

badairsucker

12th Aug 2007, 14:51

I find it staggering how much in fighting there is regarding this offer, as expected, the company have split the workforce.

It's about time we all stood together and voted NO. The pilot shortage will work in our favour but let's just sit on our hands, vote no, then tackle the next offer etc.

Time is on our side gentlemen......:ok:

404 Titan

12th Aug 2007, 14:54

BlunderBus

I’m glad you agree that we should improve the conditions for everyone. But like I said to a “B” scaler before that was having a go at “A” scalers, lets vent all this energy in the right direction. United we stand, divided we fall.

By the way RA65 isn’t fate a comply if you don’t sign CoS08. If the HK government brings in age discrimination laws your contract is still valid for RA55. Only you can decide to work to 65. The company and the government can’t make you.

oriental flyer

I think ACMS has apologised.
Yes...I apologise to all the A scalers if I offended you.So please lets just leave it there, OK.:ok:

aislinn

12th Aug 2007, 15:01

Ladies and Gentleman,
Take a long hard look at the last fourteen years....... What are we going to do about it?

BlunderBus

12th Aug 2007, 15:06

that's 'fait accompli' knucklehead

jtr

12th Aug 2007, 16:01

http://www.pprune.org/aads/sigmar_aviation_06.gif

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 16:19

Oriental flyer: mate it's 2% on total pay and HDP, so you will get about $3,000 extra a month per CN.

BlunderBus: I make $106,000 per month, way inappropriate considering where I live.

In a nutshell: Our retirement age is 55. You are currently bypassing the AOA, making your own contracts with CX and accepting less than B scale to extend. ( and with no COS package )
Now the company comes up with a payrise for B scale of 11.5% over 2 years whilst telling us they will pay A scales to you blokes after 55, which means you get a 35% payrise after 55 over what you are accepting now.
You were always going to retire at 55, never a thought about it till a few years ago. And as I said you accepted the companies contract of less than B scale to extend so I my eyes you are now getting a 35% payrise after 55 years old.
That's fine ..........but where's my 35% payrise after 55?

ACMS

12th Aug 2007, 16:23

Blundebus: we still insist on fighting the company when they table a **** deal that affects everyone.
I guess that in 1993 CX introducing B scales 30% less than you just slipped through to the keeper ey:(.
Would you care to enlighten us as to what the Pilot body did back then? Because over the years I've been apologized to twice by A scalers that said "we should have done something"

BusyB

12th Aug 2007, 17:03

ACMS,

"You joined on A scales KNOWING 55 was the end of the golden road, your P/ funds are more than ok by the time you reach 55, we all know they're worth about $800,000 per year of service to you, and you joined knowing 55 was the end for the P/fund.

So now you get another 10 magic years on that nice A scale of about $145,000 month, with a lot of COS add ons."

You're missing the point, we are not on "A-Scales" any more. After a 25% paycut in '99 and no pay rises since '94 we are not on what we joined on, we're A-minus at best. Hence when CX has to extend the retirement age some will take advantage of it to make up for what we lost when CX broke our contract. If I knew that I was going to have a 25% paycut and no payrise from '94 until the end of my career do you really think I would have left 15yrs seniority at a National Carrier to come to CX. You didn't join with any expectations other than payrises over the years and you've had very little of that so we're all in the same boat. Stop whinging at A-scalers and lets try and stand together for once.:ok:

Nullaman

12th Aug 2007, 17:10

Seems to me the only way forward is to unite and drive this forward for ......
ALL CREW'S BENEFITS
Not the manager's bonuses!
Let's stop infighting and present a unified front.

BusyB

12th Aug 2007, 21:10

Well Ed,

Your first two points are correct.

Your third point is wide of the mark. If the GC reject the COS you won't get a vote. I'd rather we all voted.
Not enough people stood for the GC (difficult to believe I know), despite all the posturing on PPRuNe, so unless the GC resigns you are stuck with them. I feel sure they would have been happy to stand down if some of these talented, incisive and fair individuals had stood.:ugh:

Sqwak7700

12th Aug 2007, 22:43

I came accross this a while back. I blieve it was on a United pilot board (Edited for our situation), but it is appropriate none the less;

I am an Army of One (or 2, or 300, ...)

I am an army of One - A Captain in the Cathay Pacific army. For years I was a loyal soldier in Swire's army. Now I fight my own war. I used to feel valued and respected. Now I know I am mere fodder. They (CX) used to exhibit labor leadership. Now they exploit legal loopholes. They used to enjoy my maximum. Now they will suffer my minimum.

I am an army of One.

I used to save CPA a thousand Kilos of fuel per leg; finding the best FL, getting direct routing, throttling back when on-time was made, skimping during ground ops, adjusting for winds, being smart and giving the company every effort I could conjure. Now, it's "burn baby,burn". I used to call maintenance while airborne, so the part would be ready at the gate. Now, they'll find the write-up when they look in the book. I used to try to fix problems in the system, now I sit and watch as the miscues pile up. I used to fly sick. Now I use my sick days, on short notice, on the worst day of the month.

I am an army of One.

I used to start the APU at the last possible moment. Now my customers enjoy extreme comfort. I used to let the price of fuel at out-stations affect my fuel orders. I still do. I used to cover mistakes by operations. Now I watch them unfold. I used to hustle to ensure an on-time arrival, to make us the best. I used to call ATC for rerouting, to head off ground delays for bad weather. Now I collect overs, number 35 in line for takeoff.

I am on a new mission - to demonstrate that misguided leadership of indifference and disrespect has a cost. It's about character, not contracts. It's about leading by taking care of your people instead of leadership by bean counters (Oxy-morron).

With acts of omission, not commission, I am a one-man wrecking crew - an army of One. My mission used to be to make CPA rich. Now it's to make CPA pay.

When they fire more pilots than the rest, pilots that cost them 60 cents on the dollar - I will make them pay. When they under-staff bases and over-work reserves to keep pilots downgraded or downtrodden - I will make them pay. When they force pilots, who have waited years to become captains, to be FOs again - I will make them pay. When they constantly violate the letter and spirit of our contract - a contract that's a bargain by any measure, and force us to fight lengthy grievances. I will make them pay.

My negotiating committee speaks for me, but I act on my own. I am a walking nightmare to the bean counters that made me. Are you listening? This mercenary has a lot of years left with this company; how long can you afford to keep me bitter? I'm not looking for clauses in a contract, I'm looking for a culture of commitment and caring. When I see it, I'll be a soldier
for CPA again.

Until then, I am an Army of One, And I'm not alone!!!!

Do you want to be an Army of one and send a message??

Fresshen up that resume. The company provides us with reference letters. Imagine if all the fleet offices received requests for reference letters from just about all pilots in the period of one month. That would send a strong message. These sort of things would surely rip the dollar sign reflections from their eyes and bring them back to reality.

So come on guys. Pardon the language, but it is time to let the sack hang. :D

Pogie

13th Aug 2007, 00:39

Why should we even entertain this further division of our payscales. It was bad enough having A,B, and F scales. Now we'd have Unified Scales to add to the already discriminatory present collection of scales. Management is obviously trying to further divide us. If they're really interested in a Unified Scale, then Unify the whole works. Every pilot -- One Scale!!!!

Extendees getting a bump from B to A, while USAB Unified is a payCUT from present USAB for FOs (US$20K in 4th year FO scale)??? First year European Freighter captain already makes US$30,000 more than an American doing the same job. Why did they get a larger (4%/4% versus 3%/3%) payraise???? The whole thing reaks of discrimination and is only going to make recruiting Americans more difficult than it already is for the Recruitment Team.

The company needs ALL pilots to grow! Now is the time to make the move to a Single Scale. Screw all the A vs. B crap! One Airline -- One Scale!!!! The ONLY way we'll beat this is to join together and vote down any attempts to further separate the ranks and keep us weak.

One Airline -- One Scale!!!!!!

404 Titan

13th Aug 2007, 00:45

BlunderBus

I was polite and courteous to you. What a shame you couldn’t reciprocate the same manners. We all make spelling and grammar mistakes every now and then, especially when we are tired at 1:00am in the morning. This debate is about “Pay & Cos”. Let’s stick to it and not lose our focus.

Truckmasters

13th Aug 2007, 01:27

If for one minute we could ignore how bad this offer is.

This debate is about “Pay & Cos”.

And if for no other reason this is one to vote NO.
We spent so long on other votes getting told we won't discuss pay in combination with the other issues. Fine, make them live up to their words, lets only talk about pay not all the other issues they have thrown in.

404 Titan

13th Aug 2007, 02:16

Truckmasters

I agree but I actually think we can now use RA65 and unified DEFO to our advantage as a bargaining tool for a better pay offer i.e. a common pay scale for everyone. The company has shown its hand. None of us joined this company on whatever pay scale to see our pay diminish with time because of inflation and undervalued currencies or be forced to take significant pay cuts. The company needs every single one of us. Play our cards right and they will, mark my words, come back with a better offer.:ok:

cxflyer

13th Aug 2007, 02:17

B-Scaler,
What a bunch of cr##$. I was there. We as a group soundly voted down the idea of a second lower scale. Our GC sited examples of other airlines that had tried this. The GC sent out packages to people coming for interviews explaining the differences and suggesting it would be hard to live in HK on the B scale. Of course the compnany did what they wanted, and people, you for example, joined. Trust me we (A scale) didn't want a second scale and didn't want anyone to accept it, but people did. The big question then was do we allow B scale to be part of our association as some (many) viewed we were being undercut. Pilots were coming and offering to do my job for less. It was a very heated meeting with a resolution to allow B scale to join us in the AOA passing by a small margin. The eventual thought was we would all be better off if we could work TOGETHER. For the record I votged against that particular motion but I soon came to understand the benefit of working together to improve ALL of our lots.
There was no "lets screw the new guys to save ourselves" In fact it speaks to the integrity of many of the "A scalers" that we didn't view the new B scalers in a harsher light, given that the B scale was undercutting our positions.
Now lets all stop the infighting, it plays to CX's hand, and work together for once. There is nothing in this proposal for any of us that would justify voting for this. I could care less about age 60 or 65, I want a raise and I want my collegues, ALL my collegues to get a raise, with NO new CoS, and not tied to productivity.
Vote NO

Numero Crunchero

13th Aug 2007, 02:43

I always assumed good spelling was a sign or intelligence - thats why I use small, easy to spell words;-)

Clarification
I thought you had to be on CoS08 to GO on a base after 1/1/08. I am not sure if that is true. I know if you are an SO going on a base out of seniority you go on CoS08 and UFO scales. But for FOs it may be possible to go on a base on CoS99. However, as soon as the basing company is started up you would have to go onto the new basing company terms which may or may not include bypass pay. I can state that it was the intent that no bypass pay would apply to based officers but then local legislation may result in a different outcome for CX.

What we did or did not do to prevent B scales is spilt milk. How we should have handled 1994, 1999, 2001, 49ers is all water under the bridge. The current deal is what we are looking at not how much better we could have handled things with 20:20 hindsight.
I think that A scalers not getting a payrise for over a decade, suffering 8-25% paycuts etc, have a legitmate grievance.
I think a B scaler joining 14 years ago and earning 20-30% less than me his entire career so far has a legitimate grievance.
I think LEPs not getting housing for 12-13 years and then only getting the base rate have a legitimate grievance. I think the low salaries and terrible roster disruptions give the freighter guys fair reason to complain. Most of all, I think that having your upgrades delayed due to circumstances completely beyond your control makes the gripes of FOs and SOs quite understandable.

Now how many of these issues have been caused by other parts of the pilot body? And how do we hope to gain from playing the "my grievance is bigger than your grievance" game?

We are all aggrieved to some extent. Focus your angst in the direction it should be focussed on.

I suggest you look at the vote from two perspectives; how does it affect me and how does it affect the pilot body; and then decide your vote. I personally prefer to focus on the latter as in the long run, if we all do that, we will all be better off.

If the deal is voted down, in my opinion RA65 and DEFO will be carried out regardless and probably mostly in their current forms. I believe this as I think that RA65 is legislatively driven not AOA driven. It costs a lot of money having senior CNs, senior FO, senior SOs. Every 55+ captain reduces training course requirements by 3-5 courses. So there is short term gain in training costs but extra increments and pay will wipe out training savings over 3-5years.

I would hazard the opinion that the payrises are likely to be imposed regardless of the vote outcome. I have no inside knowledge, just observing events for the last 15 years.

RA65 - you do realise you only benefit if you work more!? If life expectancy was 65 how valuable would you find the ability to work up to 8 nights a month until your ETD (Estimated Time of Dieing). A new joiner needs to work until his 58th birthday to recoup the career earnings he would have had on his 55th birthday, if he gets no bypass pay. If he gets full bypass pay as an FO/SO he will only have to work till his 56th birthday to recoup career losses - in NPV terms.

To keep it simple, you work from 1-3 years for free to recoup losses from RA65. I do want to make the point though that this is a consequence of legislative pressures to move to RA65, not some arbitrary decision by CX. If CX pay bypass pay, it will ameliorate the losses.

clear as mud.

SAD

13th Aug 2007, 03:06

You (we) all sold the 49’s out, this is your (our) karma, getting what you (we) deserve. Too bad you (we) did not stick together then, so karma will surely make that impossible now. At least some of their legal fight is still alive. Maybe if they win our karma and lot will change.

Westcoastcapt

13th Aug 2007, 03:32

CXFlyer has given us a rather pointed history refresher. Given the facts, I think it is time to put the anti A Scale rhetoric to bed and focus on the issues at hand.

Good night.

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 03:39

BUSYB: You're missing the point, we are not on "A-Scales" any more.
call it whatever makes you feel better mate but at the end of the day your Pay is about 30% better, your P/Fund about 50% better etc etc. Call it "hickory dickory" scale if you like.:D

Westcoastcapt

13th Aug 2007, 03:47

ACMS

You accepted the job under your present pay and conditions. What part of this simple fact do you not get?

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 04:22

You accepted retirement age 55 when you joined. What part of "A scale finishes there" can't you accept.
The fact that you guys are falling over yourselves to accept crap deals to extend is proof. A scales after 55 for you is a 30% payrise, wow.
Now if you want to keep A scale after 55, fair enough, but B scale should be brought up to the same level at 55. So give me a 30% payrise after 55.
fairs fair buddy

SIC

13th Aug 2007, 04:26

We
absolutely
must
separate
the
issue
of PAY
and COS/ Contract
into
two
separate
negotiations!!!!
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh::

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 04:26

The trouble is that you guys seem to have "won the lotto" while we B scalers get very damn little.
We don't begrudge you pay, quite the opposite actually.

ok keep your A scales. BUT B scales NEED a BIG payrise too

CYRILJGROOVE

13th Aug 2007, 04:27

Goodness me how would Blunderbus and ACMS get on in the cockpit.

Lot of truth there blunderbus just the delivery a little lacking, think that was a 3 at best!

ACMS you need some serious help and therapy, you should not be in a cockpit at the moment, re read your posts you are one sick little computer.

Jose, trust me true seniority is when the senior man gets it not to troll down the list until you find the cheapest willing participant.

And who was it that told the real story about A scalers attempts to stop B scale......your story is pretty much how I recall it.

But at the end of the day CX Mismanagement are to blame for this, dont forget that. We need pay rises not linked to any other issue, PAY RISE SIMPLE.

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 04:32

I'm not sick Cyril, thanks for asking.
Just annoyed about being screwed again.....................

Westcoastcapt

13th Aug 2007, 04:43

ACMS,

You are assuming that all pilots want to stay past 55. You're kidding, right? Who wants to spend another 10 years being up in the middle of the night, listening to some guy like you, complaining about the contract he originally agreed to.
Moreover, how many new COS's do you think they could squeeze in during that period. I can't take much more of this.

sirhcttarp

13th Aug 2007, 04:46

Don't know if anyone has considered the effect of EFP but the company is pretty sneaky here... For those not interested in the math, skip to the CONCLUSION...

For example...

Proposed FO monthly salary 2008: 66193, 2009: 68179
Hourly = 2008:788 (basic pay without hdp), 2009:812 (basic pay without hdp)
HDP = 55 2008 Total hourly 0-84 = 843
EFP hourly = 1182 2009 Total hourly 0-55.9 = 867
Total hourly 56-69.9 = 887
Total hourly 70-84 = 937
EFP hourly 84-92 = 1218

However, to compare apples to apples, Pfundability and Tax must be taken into account. Effect of pfundability and tax on HDP is that from 2009, HDP component must be increased by 15.5% but since it's tax free, must be further increased by the marginal tax rate of 19% (15.5%/0.81) = 19.13% in effect in 2009 (in pretax dollars)

Total hourly 0-55.9 = 812 + 65.52 = 877.52
Total hourly 56-69.9 = 812 + 89.35 = 901.35
Total hourly 70-84 = 812 + 148.92 =960.92
EFP hourly 84-92 = 1218

CONCLUSION:
In jan 2009 % hourly pay for pilots difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 26.7%
In jan 2008 % hourly pay for pilots difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 29.9%
currently, difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 43.45%

How can they say that productivity is not taken into account here?? What this is saying now is that in 2009 the PROTECTION that we pilots had from working above 84 hrs has been reduced, because the penalty to the company for rostering you above 84 hours that costs the company 43.45% today will reduce to costing the company only 26.7% in 2009.

Translation, it won't hurt the company as much in the future to roster you to 92 hours as it does today and so they'll do it without thinking twice about it!

Similarly there is a reduction in overtime protection for pilots above 92 hrs and above 100hrs. i.e. it hurts them a lot to do it now... but it will hurt them less to do it in the future.

Disclaimer... there is a slight calculation error here because this is more calculated from the pilot's before tax wages perspective rather than the company's cost perspective. If you take the company's cost perspective, just change the 19% effect of PF HDP to only 15.5% as this is the true cost to the company and not the before tax effect to the pilot's wage. Very small difference but the argument holds that it will cost the company much less to roster you to overtime in the future!

CYRILJGROOVE

13th Aug 2007, 05:19

Good Spot Regarding Cos 99 And No Extension Past 55, Freight Dog, Have To Think About That One But Initial Thoughts Are Interesting.

CYRILJGROOVE

13th Aug 2007, 05:41

err.... wasnt asking if you were sick, I was telling you you are, but never let a little truth or fact get in the way of a biased incorrect statement, thats what we expect from you ACMS.......go have a serious re boot and have a couple of days off Prune.

I try to look at this from everyones angle, you seem to plan on staying post 55 yourself and all you are concerned about is your 5% travel fund loss, mate it is a lot more complicated than that.

Thats why the GC is obviously not rushing to rash conclusions. I am long time A scale and have serious concerns for those officers going to be longer in the RHS, without compensation and the yet to join DEFO's. The fact CX wants to cancel the FACA but still wants to have Freighter Captain pay just highlights they want their cake and eat it to. I do not want the HKAOA to put their endorsement on Unified Freighter scales to allow Walker and Co to tell the new hires the AOA endorsed this new payscale, let them sqirm in their own brown stuff.

You make me want to puke when you offer to take my payscale away, maybe my friend Blunderbus could put a few kind words together for you.

cxflyer

13th Aug 2007, 06:26

ACMS ,I'll say what many of us have said here many times. The Ascalers are not responsible for your conditions. We didn't want any other scales, we told the company it was a bad idea, we sent out info to prospective new hires, all to no avail. You lot came here anyhow. There is not one A scaler that wouldn't like to see the end of all other scales, one airline one payscale. That said I(we) have taken nothing but cuts, 22% in 01, then loss of 13th month, plus a 12 hour increase in flying hours per month, not to mention the loss of 2 weeks leave and a gutting of the overtime and leave credit system. Oh yes and on a base my pension is not ghosted like my HK collegues. All of these changes to what I agreed to join on. I always had the right to leave and didn't so I don't whine about the changes too much despite not liking them. Get over yourself ACMS. You agreed to come here and in that time your conditions and pay have improved. If you don't like it leave, otherwise suck it up.
We all need to vote NO! We can all do just fine in what we have for the moment. They are the ones that need OUR help so lets make sure we ALL get a good deal, not just a few.
And ACMS, going past 55? You have to be joking. I have no intention of doing that nor do many of my collegues. I know some will, but most won't. You can have it.

BlunderBus

13th Aug 2007, 08:06

A-scalers have taken the beating of the century for years.The new deal insists on eradicating the p fund,flying freighters and everything that entails including roster disruptions,travel allowance up in smoke,no pay raises..EVER.
Some of you make it sound like Cx 'introduced' B scales along with a box of chockies and a handshake....GET REAL...we fought that tooth and nail and it only affected new joiners...They rammed it up the employees collective ass.
If you're asking what we did way back then to prevent it then obviously you are 'post-action' but it is all in the union archives if you ever consider taking the time to educate yourselves.There is no way on god's earth any B-scaler could contribute in personal loss and financial contribution that which would even come close to what the A-scalers laid out in trying to protect conditions for ALL CREW in cx...ask any 49-er.If some f**kwitted A-scale guy admitted we should have done something back then.. then i put it to you he WAS one of a VERY slim minority who in fact DID do nothing..either that or he was kissing your ass..maybe he fancied you..there's a bit of it going around these days.
The original p/fund was designed for the 40 year old RAF types who joined in droves, back when cx had a recruiting standard, to give them a good retirement after 15 years service(to supplement their .25 cents/week p/fund from the airforce).Of course they hired younger guys on a-scale and it all blew up in their face.Now for the 'career'(sound of raucous laughter)pilots they have spat the dummy and want it dismantled.EVERY pilot should be on CPALRS..period.(not some b/s cx approved fund...who made that s**t up anyway?).We had solidarity way back when but of course along came all of you greedy little buggers looking for a step up from the cessna and snookered our efforts...resulting in...YOU GUESSED IT...B_SCALES/C-scales/Freighter scales!
DID-DAH...pure magic..all we got was a huge pay cut and 49 executed in the line of duty.(37 still MIA i might add)
Now you're telling me that i'm getting a pay RISE if i stay beyond 55???that's above the pay i'd be getting if i worked beyond 55 on freighters right?? A BIG F******G DUHHH:8 to you!
ONE JOB ONE PAY sounds great to me..well said that man.
I don't particularly want to work beyond 55...i WON'T do it on crap pay..we work much harder than the contract jobs going at the mo'..i don't want to fly the freighter purely in protest at what cx did all those years ago..plus the s**t roster..and i strongly believe in an extremely wealthy,record profit making company being made to stick to it's word with regard to employment contracts...here's a quote from the past you may like to ask a senior guy sometime...
"that's not a contract...it's an 'agreement'....binding in HONOUR ONLY"
CX quotation of the century

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 08:11

pedantic little prick aren't you Cyril..........pathetic too
You make me want to puke when you offer to take my payscale away currently the contact you legally signed has you finishing A scale apon your retirement at 55-------I'm not taking anything away..you are..........
AND TO PROVE IT A LOT OF YOUR BROTHERS HAVE ACCEPTED FAR WORSE TO EXTEND.....

BlunderBus

13th Aug 2007, 08:13

CX being forced to move onshore...read the company spiel at the top of the page of crew direct..it is ILLEGAL to impose condition of service changes in outport countries or use retirement age as leverage....HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE HERE...???
Maybe it's well on the way already and they need a hasty A-scale decision to prevent them putting the Ky-bosh on the p'fund....hmmmm
They wouldn't do that would they???...NOT

BlunderBus

13th Aug 2007, 08:18

actually i think we'd get along pretty well....be an interesting beer or two.You're so argumentative i'm getting to like it

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 08:18

Cityflyer: And ACMS, going past 55? You have to be joking. I have no intention of doing that nor do many of my collegues. I know some will, but most won't. You can have it.
I very nearly fell on the floor I was laughing sooo hard. Mate cut the crap. You will sell your granny to stay here on B scales to fly the "rubber dog ****" outta Hong Kong, and you know it.

BlunderBus

13th Aug 2007, 08:21

ACMS..There's an awful lot of A-scale guys who joined young and have had it with all the B/S...i think most of us don't actually need to stay.You may be pleasantly surprised.

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 08:25

Sure.............and I suppose you have a nice cheap piece of land I can buy from you too.
If I had a dollar for every 54+ y.o. telling me he "wasn't going to work for that money past 55" I'd be a zillionair and wouldn't need a payrise in the first place.
Not only that they suddenly move into training as well:bored:

I'm sorry but I just don't believe you. Nice try though.:ok:

Apple Tree Yard

13th Aug 2007, 08:47

ACMS. Have a goooooood look at yourself in the mirror. Notice a rather 'small' man, the bitter and twisted look fixed hard upon your face..? Figure out who the real master of your misery is...and stop trying to bring this profession down any further. Pathetic....yes, you.

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 09:06

I think too many apples have fallen off your tree.

oriental flyer

13th Aug 2007, 09:27

Okay I've officially had it with ACMS . He is beyond redemption I just hope that I never have to fly with him I cannot imagine the hostility that he must bring to the flight deck.
So I will no longer respond to his posts period.

22N114E

13th Aug 2007, 09:43

ACMS wrote:
Oh and guys when the A scalers b:mad:and moan about the pay cut they were forced into, ask them how much the Share Options they were given at $7.47 per share are worth now. I seem to recall that they only had to double in value to negate the pay cut?
Maybe a wise A scaler can enlighten us all?
An A scaler yes, wise, probably not, but as you asked the question I can supply you with the answer for my particular circumstances.
Since the inception of the pay cuts on 01.07.99, my personal salary has dropped by a total of HK$1.025m. I sold my shares at close to HK$16. Even though the value of the shares more than doubled, the gain totalled HK$950k. Subtracting the two has resulted in a deficit of almost HK$75k. When I now add the tax that I paid on the gain, the deficit stands at HK$196k. So there is no basis to the story that the options had to double to cover the pain of our cuts.
Had I been wise and sold today at HK$20.75, after paying tax, I would still be ahead by HK$300k. However, as my current monthly salary lags my original salary by HK$15k, in 20 months that HK$300k would not compensate for the loss of income that I joined on. I have many more months than 20 to serve.
Why have I posted?
I know ACMS has apologised for attacking the A scale officers, however enough is enough. CX must be loving this, watching us destroy the very fabric of who we are.
A very wise former VP once told me that we should leave the organisation in better shape than when we joined. Given the legacy of our employer, this is virtually impossible to achieve. COS08 does little for those following in our footsteps, so I will vote appropriately, even though it may appear that my generation has most to gain.
Sir, the enemy is without, not within. Ensure you target your frustration correctly....

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 09:54

Thanks for giving us the truth about your share options.
Question:
You paid tax on your share options, you would have also paid tax on the extra pay as well ( if there was no pay cut )
Therefore you cannot subtract the tax you paid on the gain to compare, can you?
Just tell us the difference in incomes, they are both taxable at around 16%

It hasn't totally covered your paycut, but it came pretty close didn't it?

So when you guys bandy around that you took a 22% paycut, we know what you really mean.

Thanks

freightdoggiedog

13th Aug 2007, 09:59

Nice post Freightdog188 (I like your handle too, are we cousins?). So, in summary (and adding a few of my own grievances), in exchange for Age 65, considerable lengthening of time-to-command for FOs/SOs and the death of FACA:

1) ONE SINGLE PAYSCALE NOW, ranging from CURRENT YEAR ONE PAX for all new DEFO hires to CURRENT A SCALE at the top of the range. One payscale also means 13th month for based guys, and a degree of currency protection.

2) Said new single payscale should result in approximately a 15% payrise at the bottom of the new scale compared to the equivalent rank/seniority on the present B-scale, tapering off to a more modest increase at the top of the new unified scale with respect to current A-scale.

3) Bypass pay for ALL FOs/SOs, not just HKG based ones, when captains extend past age 55, in order of seniority and with clear rules governing assessment times and eligibility.

4) Clarity as to who will be responsible for the new taxes that will result in CX going onshore on bases.

The only disparity between CX pilots would then be down to rank and seniority (as it should be) and the fact that HKG based guys get housing and schooling (fair enough I say).

I know this may sound like a lot, but in actual fact the main expenses for the company are getting the freight guys onto the same payscale as everybody else, which I believe they will have to eventually do anyway if they want everyone to crew the freighter, and of course the general payrise, which MARKET FORCES would warrant! Right now quite frankly the company can most definitely afford this. I suspect this is the one chance we have at getting ourselves all on the same scale.

I personally would even be willing to accept a smaller general rise provided we all ended up on the same scale, which I regard as the biggest prize: let's face it, without it we are divided and the company can easily play us against each other to obtain what it wants. Learn from the past and apply it to the future, or we are condemned to repeat the same errors over and over again.

fdd :ok:

BusyB

13th Aug 2007, 10:52

ACMS,

Since you are so keen on dissecting everyone else's pay please tell us exactly how much more you have earned than your joining payscale (at all ranks) would have given you.

I think you'll find you are well ahead of A-scalers who do the same calculation.:ok:

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 11:15

what do you mean?
I joined 14 odd years ago, got pay rises only through promotion and annual increments and here I am.
huh? Unlike you I haven' t claimed a 28% pay cut without giving all the facts.
The supposed A scale pay cut wasn't as bad as the A scalers led us to believe.
N22 would actually be better off if he hadn't sold his funds, then he tried to blame Tax on the shares. ( as if his original salary wouldn't have been taxed ) to make the result look worse.

22N114E

13th Aug 2007, 12:22

Last post, I promise.
ACMS, you asked for a wise A scale officer to share his experience, and when he does, you then attempt to turn his honest reply to your advantage. The figures I gave were how they personally affected me, and as you can see without taking tax into the equation the deficit stands today at $HK75k. Hindsight is wonderful and I would have loved to have held onto those shares but I did not. I blame no one but myself and certainly did not try to hide behind taxation. The figures were there in my original post.
In a direct reply to me you say, quote
"So when you guys bandy around that you took a 22% pay cut, we know what you really mean."
In a reply to BusyB you quote
"Unlike you I haven’t claimed a 28% pay cut without giving all the facts."
Sir, you need to get your facts correct.
My cut, as with all HKG officers was 9.321% spread over 3 years. So my deficit, currently running at HK$75k refers to someone who suffered the least pay cut. Even today, the value of the stock option gain can in no way recompense the based offers who suffer substantially greater cuts than I.
Please do not twist the truth to suit your personal agenda.
Speaking of facts, you have just quoted
"I joined 14 odd years ago, got pay rises only through promotion and annual increments and here I am."(sic)
I have your conditions of service here in front of me. As our salaries were cut, yours rose effective 01.07.99 and then again by a further 4% on 01.07.00 and a further 3% on 01.07.01. Someone other there will be able to refresh your memory on scale adjustments between the date you joined and 01.07.99. I think you will find there were some!
The enemy is not within..... We are on the same side, but you do the cause significant harm with your vitriol.

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 12:36

N22 a couple of pages back Blunderbus wrote that a friend ( a scale ) took a 28% pay cut. That's were I got that from when replying to BusyB.

Mate you can't put Tax into it to make it look worse. THEY ARE BOTH INCOME AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PAYE TAX.

I was pointing out your mistake.
I am not twisting it.............saying I took a 28% pay cut IS

BusyB

13th Aug 2007, 12:42

ACMS,

You lied about your pay.

How would anyone take you seriously when you can't even tell the truth about your own pay?:=

Bograt

13th Aug 2007, 13:10

Blunderbus
"The infantile level of spelling and grammar diplayed here also shows many of you up as being a bit thick.I digress."

Before berating others about how "thick" they might be - run a spell checker over your own posts and find out how to spell "privilege." There's no "d"... (I'll ignore the misspelling of "displayed" in your quote above and the failure to include a space after the full-stop - they're typo's I'm sure)

CSA

Regarding your question about what I intend to do about this proposal, instead of following your suggestion and placing my head on the company chopping block by signing an open letter to them, I intend to vote No.

ACMS

13th Aug 2007, 13:36

BUSYB;;;;; you are correct, we did get a pay rise in 2001. Sorry for the omission.

willnotcomply

13th Aug 2007, 13:41

Grow some balls and reject the deal!

Pogie

13th Aug 2007, 14:22

Please focus guys...
One Airline -- One Payscale!!!
While we're at it... Why can't we push for the ability to hitch a ride on our freighters? FedEx takes riders, so any blame pointed at Gen Decs is a load of bull!

Nullaman

13th Aug 2007, 14:36

That's a great catchphrase Pogie

One Airline -- One Payscale!!!

Westcoastcapt

13th Aug 2007, 15:00

Just tell the AOA that you will vote no, so we can move on!
ACMS, have you exploded yet?

Numero Crunchero

13th Aug 2007, 15:43

ACMS,
I do read what you have to say. I think you could post with a little less emotion to get your post across...what do they say "yelling abuse through a doorway will cause the door to close"...but never the less, I do read and understand what you have to say.

No matter how I dress it up, I have earnt more than you. I have only been here a year or so longer than you. My grievance...my option recompense was based on being an FO and due to personal circumstances my options were exercised around $10-11. Boo hoo I hear everyone say. Exactly. According to me I feel hard done by as, unlike 22N, my options covered less than 10% of my career losses due pay cuts. According to everyone else they say get on with life as you have had a good deal. WE are all aggrieved!

Just to clear up a misconception...A scale payrises haven't occurred for over a decade. The HDP payrise in 2001 was introduced because the company did NOT want to reverse a paycut already planned and put in place for Jul 1st 2001. The plan was that the HDP would wipe out the last of the A scale paycuts. This came about as they had made an embarrassingly big profit after justifying the paycuts due to poor financial conditions.

A scales did suffer big paycuts....period. B scales are underpaid....period. How does taking it out on each other help in anyway whatsoever?

Please just look at the deal....vote pragmatically or idealistically - your choice.

cxflyer

13th Aug 2007, 18:12

ACMS,
A bit arrogant assuming you know what I or anybody else would do, but I guess it fits. You are right about one thing, I'd sell your sorry pathetic, greedy B scale #$# down the river, to the lowest bidder. Wait, I stand corrected you already sold yourself to the lowest bidder didn't you. You are exactly why the company continues to win, its always me me me for you isn't it. Please do us all a favour and quit, go to KAL or some such place, I'm sure you can offer to do their jobs for less money.:eek:

cxflyer

13th Aug 2007, 18:27

Dear ALL, (minus ACMS)
Let us all stick together. By our very make up we have many different agendas but we need to put that all aside. We can not sell others down the path for a short term personal benefit ( flying freight, extending on A scale, conditional raises, no back dating etc etc.) For once lets do the proper thing, VOTE NO. It is the no risk answer to this. Lets all vote no then continue on our present terms and conditions. None of us is going to die over that option and bonus, none of us will get screwed. We would put the ball back in the companies court and see what they do. We KNOW they need help in crewing, we KNOW they need to stop people leaving. When the company told the AOA that they would not consider a retroactive increase to July07 the GC should have got up and walked out. CX CAN NOT change our CoS without our agreement, so what if they "Impose" a pay raise, let them, that doesn't help their cause much. As members of the AOA we all need to make clear to our representatives what it is WE want, and how WE want them to react. No more "secret" talks, no more "selling" of a substandard deal that pits one group against another to the benefit of only one, CX. Please, everyone look at the big picture, stay together and vote NO.:ok:
Oh yes, ACMS you do what suits you, as you always seem to do.

Humber10

13th Aug 2007, 18:31

My 2 cents worth.....NO sounds like a good answer till there is an offer on the plate we can eat! :ugh:

Westcoastcapt

13th Aug 2007, 18:36

No, seems to be the obvious answer. To most of us anyways. Why is it taking so long for some to realise that. Perhaps we are spending too much time berating each other. Please, let's move on!

octanecolt

14th Aug 2007, 00:08

A unified salary for all Officers.
Abolishment of A scale salaries and difference to be distributed as pay increase to all Officers on a unified B Scale pay salary.
Pay rates for appointments. Increments paid according to years in current Rank.
Training: +10%
Checking +20%
Management Appointments (For all appointments within FOP inclusive of DFO and subordinate positions in FOP management) +22.5%
Management bonuses forthwith ceased and replaced in entirety with profit share same as is currently payable to all CX employees.
No negotiation on retirement age until such time as all pilots (Freighters and Local employee contracts) and Management appointments are on the one unified pay scale including Housing allowance to all Hong Kong domiciled officers.
All pilots, flight engineers and simulator instructors are paid on a unified B scale rate and Conditions of Service contract.
Lets take a vote on this eh.

Apple Tree Yard

14th Aug 2007, 00:10

Reference the above: another idiot wishing to dumb down the conditions of the profession. :ugh:

octanecolt

14th Aug 2007, 01:25

I agree completely with BScaler's points here.... 14 years and the parity of B and A scales has not been achieved....and nor will it be likely achieved for another 14 years or more.... It's time for a new strategy.

"Bearing this in mind, I cannot see any justification for an increase in A-Scale remuneration at this time, until B-Scale reaches A-Scale salary scales. Note that I do not advocate a reduction in A-Scale pay, just a hold until B reaches A. It has been 14 years since the introduction of B-Scales and the 'advance A-Scales at all costs and eventually bring B up to A...' argument has run it's course and been found wanting. I believe, therefore, that the amount allocated to increasing A-Scale remuneration in this agreement should be applied to B-Scales first, in an effort to bring aircrew pay scales into line with each other, and then have the scales progress upwards together in unity. Any fair-minded A-Scale officer could not have any serious issue with this proposal, especially as A-Scale officers stand to gain 10 bonus years of employment;"

Apple Tree Yard

14th Aug 2007, 01:45

you don't advance your own conditions by lowering those of the officers above you. Economics 101. What airline in the world pays its most senior aircrew 'less' money...? I don't want to commit my career to an airline that operates in that fashion.

To put the idiocy of your ideas into perspective, imagine you're a union officer with the American Airlines pilot union...and you just made that suggestion to the membership?

Giggleswick

14th Aug 2007, 02:12

Gentlemen,

Many OB (Organisational Behaviour) studies have shown that RELATIVE pay is far more important than ABSOLUTE pay. The village leader in Africa is envied by his subjects because he owns one pig more than everyone else. In RELATIVE terms he is rich and probably very contented, in ABSOLUTE terms (compared to us let's say) he is a poor man!

Here at Cathay there will never be harmony on the flightdeck until everyone is rewarded equally for doing the same job. Our B-scale CNs do as good a job of operating our aircraft safely as do our A-scalers; otherwise they wouldn't have passed our demanding command course. The benchmark used to be, 'would you be happy to put your family down the back with that guy in charge?' There is only ONE standard on our flightdecks and achieving and maintaining that standard should be rewarded by ONE payscale period. If there is any A-scale C&T out there who checks B-scale CNs and A-scale CNs to a different standard then please speak up. In my experience the C&T department don't expect a sub-standard performance from a B-scale CN because he is on a sub-standard award. Please tell me otherwise and I'll put 40% less effort into my next PC and Line Cx!

The removal of this inequality is what the AOA should be striving for and many A-scale CNs agree, but unfortunately they're not the ones sitting on the GC. CN1 on the seniority list should be our 'ground zero' and is where the A & B scale should merge. At the other end of the scale all future DEFOs should join on B-scale pax pay and conditions as they do today. Market forces (ie. inability to simultaneously recruit on different COS in the same base area) will force the company to abolish freighter scales and bring all FOs up onto the same scale. Voila! One unified FO scale (UFO!) and one unified CN scale. This SHOULD be the goal of the AOA negotiating committee and not the perpetuation of the inequality which we endure today and which has led to much destructive infighting. This is not 'pie in the sky' but it is achievable by simply voting NO.

Bypass pay is a 'red herring' - it is only paid for the period you are Cat A between assessment and command course and is currently 2-3mths. Hardly compensation for an extra 3-4 yrs in the RHS!

RA65 is a 'red herring' in HKG because your retirement age remains 55 if you elect to remain on COS99! The company CANNOT seriously be concerned about impending legislation change in HKG if RA55 will remain in place in our present contract.

So just vote NO and take a payrise if it is imposed. The FACA and the COS99 DEFO clause are our only trump cards, let's not trade them cheaply.

Remember there is NO later!