Bypass pay - expectation management [Archive]

Numero Crunchero

21st Mar 2008, 02:12

I read the latest HKAOA newsletter with interest. I see now that "we" are considering compromising with management over the considerable bypass pay burden they will endure with the implementation of RA65.

Here is a simple fact about bypass pay. It does not, repeat, does not fully compensate you for a career of lost earnings.

Simple example but first the assumptions.

Time to command
Current time to command (for those that joined 9 years ago) is 9 years. Future time to command is likely to be 12-14years - that is assuming a growth rate we have had over the last 6 years....but bear in mind that all the current orders in place give a future growth rate below what we have had for the last 6 years.

Retirement Age
"But not everyone will work till 65!". True! But if everyone works just to 60, then for the first five years of the introduction of RA65 there will be 100% extending. Then five years from now we will resume our more than normal 50 or so retirees a year. So whether everyone works to 60 or 65 is open to conjecture. For every 2 years of extension it costs one year to command to an SO or junior FO.

The example.
With the introduction of RA65, if you joined this decade then your command time will be extended beyond what you would have expected. If you are a recent joiner(you get no bypass pay if you joined 1/1/08 onwards - basically screwed!) it will be by 3-5 years by the introduction of RA65. So if you had been a SFO3 after 9 years, you will get bypass pay taking your salary up to CN1. Then when you are SFO4 you get the difference up to CN1 etc. So if your command is delayed say 3 years, you will then finally 'earn' CN1 pay. Without RA65(or any extendees) you would have been on SCN2 at that point. So for the rest of your career you will be 3 increments lower than before the introduction of RA65.

The financial effect of RA65.
When you get to 55, you will have earnt approx a years less salary assuming you got full bypass pay at SO and FO levels. If you don't get any bypass pay you are 3 years behind! So you will work between 1 and 3 years for free from 55onwards to recover the lost earnings.

AOA- CX compromise.
We all joined knowing it was RA55 - that gave us a relatively 'quick' time to command of around 9 years. The goal posts have moved but CX is definitely happy with their movement! Bypass pay ameliorates the pay loss but does not fully compensate for it. So if you are not happy with losing some of this compensation I would let your GC know before it gets 'compromised' to a lower amount.

RA65 is not a win.
Why move it to 65 -why not until 100? Assuming we all die on the job we don't need any money for retirement and so we can save CX the 15.5% PF contributions. I hope to retire one day on or before 55. I have not done all this time in CX a/c so that I can die in one. I hope to have many years in retirement - presumably many share the same intent! So every year you work beyond your original planned retirement date is a year closer to death when you ultimately retire!

This is not an A scale thing - although if RA65 is forced in it should be on your conditions as they existed before your 55th birthday.

I see now the zoologist has finally worked out that RA65 may delay to command - although he says it will not "unduly slow" it. Glad to see someone has explained that to our hierarchy. It was getting a little tiresome over the last five years hearing that RA60 would accelerate time to command - anyone ever heard of Goebells? Last year there were about 100 pax commands planned...this year it is closer to 50!

We all joined on a contract - both parties agreed to its conditions. In that contract was RA55. Normally a contract is only varied with the agreement of both parties(yes we 'agreed' to the paycuts in 99 as we didn't like the alternative). So please make sure that any deal 'negotiated' by your GC is in your best interests before accepting it.

In the current environment of pilot shortages I thought CX should 'compromise' on bypass pay and increase it to reflect the rank you would have been and then promoted you into the increment you would have been. Only in that scenario would you not lose money. So basically, in my example above, the 3 year delayed FO would be paid bypass pay of CN1, CN2, SCN1 and then become SCN2 when he finally gets his command course! Its not hard to work out - but it might take some explaining to our leaders since they are still recovering from the shock of RA65 actually not decreasing time to command!

missingblade

21st Mar 2008, 03:24

From AOA newsletter:

met with the DFO on the 14th March to discuss the Normal Retirement Age (NRA) of Cathay Pacific aircrew
I always thought the NORMAL retirement age was 55. This is terminology meant to soften us up to a new way of thinking.

If we put changing the NRA on the back-burner until we have a pay deal that satisfies everyone, we run the very real risk of disadvantaging a large proportion of our number.
Strangely I feel that the only people being disadvantaged by not having an age 65 deal will be the A scalers who got a command after 4 years here and now want to stay on.

And this from the DFO update last week:
change in retirement age will not unduly slow their career progression and, if it does, agreeing to some form of compensation or By Pass.
I was under the impression that bypass was written in my contract - its news to me that management now has a choice to agree to " some form of compensation" This sounds like expectation management again......

The language being employed by the people on both sides of this deal scares me. It seems that everybody has already accepted that we will have to make some compromise on bypass!! Ie that the contract I was hired on is now up for renegotiation whether I want to or not?

stillalbatross

21st Mar 2008, 06:21

Age 65 is irrelevant.

April marks the end of Commands on the pax fleet for pax joiners. All future pax commands for quite some time will now go to those who joined as freighter pilots to fly solely the freighters, were told they were only flying freighters, and then got the AOA to get them across onto the pax fleet at the beginning of 2000.

It will be years and years and years before anyone who joined as an S/O gets even a look at the left seat, from April add on at least 4-6 to the 8 it currently takes:(

Thank you AOA.

slapfaan

21st Mar 2008, 07:28

Ie that the contract I was hired on is now up for renegotiation whether I want to or not?

The perfect foundation for INDUSTRIAL ACTION!!!

Bring it on..NOW!!!:)

sizematters

21st Mar 2008, 07:44

well, don't forget to let us know when you three are taking "Industrial Action" so we can come and wave goodbye to you....................

The Management

21st Mar 2008, 07:54

You are all pusillanimous. You can’t even accomplish contract compliance. The AOA and the pilots are a mockery.

But good luck with it, try harder next time. We do what we want, when we want and your AOA assists us. We don’t care what your contract states, we decide on the changes and you and your AOA agree to them.

Promise, we will talk about pay. My bonus to be exact.

To My Bonus.

The Management

VR-HFX

21st Mar 2008, 10:33

Numero

I agree with you 100%. Who wants to die at the sharp end of a 400? Not me.

Time for everyone to think outside the box...the Great Hall of the People is looking for drivers...flick all extensions etc across to KA..that should sort out the sheep from the goats and unclog the pipeline. Most who want to extend would be happy to stay in HKG anyway...cos the only reason to stay is to pay alimony!

Ooops...incoming:E

boxjockey

21st Mar 2008, 11:51

Sizematters,

Grow a pair and stop drooling on yourself, you f@cking codger!!! I'm sure you are already in the left seat, so any sense of responsibility has already run out the crack of your fat @ss!! It doesn't affect me so......

box

sizematters

21st Mar 2008, 12:53

hey Boxjock, I'd offer to engage in a battle of wits with you................

but then again it would be unfair of me to take on an unarmed man !!!!!

Numero Crunchero

21st Mar 2008, 13:17

Right now we have around 400 B scale CNs. The savings, versus A scale, are around $140million per year on a budget for FOPs of well over $2billion for pilot salaries. That $140million would pay for almost 300SOs and 300FOs to receive bypass pay this year. So before voting on any 'compromise' to help CX save money on the onerous bypass bill they will have, keep that figure in mind - or the $7billion profit. I am sure all the money they take off pilots in reduced profit share, for being sick last year, would pay for a few pilots bypass pay as well!

RA65 may be inevitable in some jurisdictions but to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game, without compensation, is unethical. All past CoS changes have been applied to new joiners not to current employees. If they want RA65 then ensure they don't financially penalise current employees.

Its a simple mathematical equation....does the opportunity cost of 'lost opportunities' exceed the cost of fair and equitable bypass pay.

ST says we don't want to run the "...risk of disadvantaging a large proportion of our number" by discussing pay before NRA. We have around 2300 pilots and about 50 per year due to reach 55 over the next decade. So I suggest that maybe the 'majority' of 98% not reaching 55 this year might disagree with the importance of discussing NRA before pay to help the 2% due to reach 55 this year!

Yes we will all reach 55 one day...but I would like to think that none of us would accept financial gain at the pecuniary loss to our junior colleagues. It is up to the most senior of us to ensure that any transition to RA65 is done fairly.

Night Watch

21st Mar 2008, 15:37

PhilmeKrackin

I suggest you edit or delete your post.... that is completely uncalled for and shows how immature and ignorant you are.

Bow Inn

21st Mar 2008, 16:04

I thought earlier on this evening that Friday night and a few too many drinks at happy hour would probably generate a few stupid, ill informed remarks. Appears PMK's post has confirmed my theory. Your comments only add weight to the argument that, as a professional body, we can't be taken seriously.

When you wake up in the morning, could you please delete the post.

Dead Head

21st Mar 2008, 16:48

PhilmeKrackin,

You are like school in hong king right now...NO CLASS

Is that your kind of response to logical, informed dialogue?

You are a coward who hides behind some anonymous name.

For the record I cheat on my taxes, use disabled parking spots, and kick puppies.

dolian

21st Mar 2008, 16:53

I agree with all the sentiments listed at the start of this thread.
The overall big picture, as we all taught to be aware of as good aviators,
is to remember who we are employed by.
Do a Google search on Swire Company history and see what you find.
It makes for interesting reading.
To the present day, nothing has changed, the greedy people get wealththier but also loose a lot of friends and respect in the meantime.
I ask you, all of you, what is more important, enjoying your life with respect form you peers or making a life for yourself that gives you self-importance and money? I know what I have chosen.
CX gets what CX wants and I know that puts a lot of poeple off-side but look at the situation since 1999/2000 nothing has changed and people will always be selfish and look after No. 1 ( Fact of life).
I have been a HKAOA member since I joined over 10 years ago and my family and I have been through a great deal of stress trying to protect my employment contract, unfortunately to no avail.
So call me a pessimist, but I can't see any reason why this will change in the future.
There are lots of jobs out there at the moment and CX isn't the most sort after employer in the world, so maybe that will give us an advantage but as long as people extend over 55 for a worse contract or poeple join on COS 08 then nothing will change!!!!!!!!!
Think about what is important to you and don't be selfish all your life, it's too short.

Millstream

21st Mar 2008, 17:23

NC

Couple of things:

1. Despite what happened in UK, there will probably be RA65 mandated in a lot of places - maybe even UK. (If I were a betting man, I would put money on somebody taking the company to court in the UK in the near future. Maybe even the Association if the deal offered is no good).

If we resist forever, bypass pay will simply disappear, as it was going to in the UK.

Perhaps a bird in the hand would be a lot smarter.

2. Did your analysis take into account a high resignation rate among junior officers?

Milly

Five Green

21st Mar 2008, 21:55

NC :

Thanks again for some thought provoking angles.

Millstream :

It is thinking like yours that worries me. As I see it, you are posting your personal assumptions. Those assumptions grow from fear of the unknown and often become widely held beliefs among our colleagues. Then we vote based on widely held assumptions. That is dangerous because there are many things we do not know. However there are some we do. Even if a particular jurisdiction mandated age 65, why would that negate the company's contractual requirement to pay by-pass ???? If we agree to something now that is watered down then you guarantee a bad deal. If we are patient we may still get a crap deal but maybe we get more. We must be very wary as there are many factors to consider. A rushed deal is not a good deal.

Age 65 retirement is already mandated in the UK, for UK employers.

It was not mandated for the "on shoring" because legally the pilots contracts remain in Hong Kong's jurisdiction. This raises more issues than just retirement, labour law to name one.

As NC pointed out agreeing to any compromise on by pass pay means we work for free for 2 of our three years after 65, some deal ! The current Captains retiring get all of that money. So if they have to extend on freighter or go to the sandpit , I am sorry but they are still less disadvantaged then everyone coming after us. Personally I will feel the pinch only slightly. However I do not think that I can accept something that dramatically affects my mates junior to me.

Also not sure the attrition is higher then 2% per year so not much of a factor when only doing 50-100 commands per year.

One of my thoughts as a way to help out junior crew (SO/JFO) is to DO AWAY with the JFO pay scale. in other words when you pass your 528 you start on FO year 1 like it used to be. The whole delaying QLs etc is just a way of keeping salaries down. You should be paid as an FO right away. The reason it should go is that it is not fairly applied. It depends on the checker you get. There is no way your salary should be decided by luck of the draw. If you are flying as an FO you should get paid as an FO.

Sorry but this issue has bothered me for 10 years !!!!

More ideas are out there !!

FG

BusyB

22nd Mar 2008, 01:39

Five Green

It was not mandated for the "on shoring" because legally the pilots contracts remain in Hong Kong's jurisdiction. This raises more issues than just retirement, labour law to name one.

The age discrimination legislation does not mean that contracts remain in under HKG jurisdiction. As in Crofts, other UK labour laws apply:bored: and the Age act is so loosely written that it will inevitably apply as well

MACH.88

22nd Mar 2008, 06:11

Gentlemen,

We must first look at the contracts that we all signed when we came here. All with the exception of those on COS08 have a written retirement of 55. I know the company is known to change things when it suits them, so I can already hear guys muttering that.

The whole age discrimination argument is a farce because we signed on for it. Look at the case in Canada. A number of current and retired AC pilots took the company (AC) to court because they wanted age 65 (opposed to their contractual 60). They cried age discrimination. The high courts ruled against the pilots plainly stating that their retirement age is/was written in their contract. It was an agreement that they willingly signed and that was negotiated by their pilot union. Essentially, they were told that it was not a discriminatory issue and if they wanted the age changed, their union needed to renegotiate their COS.

Would the same ruling be found here or elsewhere? I don't know; I'll leave that for the lawyers among us.

MACH.88

raven11

22nd Mar 2008, 08:55

Number Cruncher, I agree with you 98% of the time, but I must take issue with the tenor of your posts on this thread. You and I know each other, and we’ve both been here for a long time.

We’ve been taking a principled stand for our rights as employees since before the industrial action of 99, and the debacle of the 49ers that followed.

For you to characterize the retirement issue as one that is of importance to only 2% of the pilot group is just spin…and diminishes your usual practical and more balanced tone.

Two percent? Lets take your assumption that it only affects 50 pilots this year. That means that 250 pilots in the past five years would have liked the option to continue past 55. Furthermore, that means 250 pilots in the next five years alone would also like the same option. So you’re saying that those 500 pilots are somehow a marginal number, a group whose feelings and concerns are less worthy?

Those 500 pilots…they fought the same principled battles you and I did!

Most of those pilots, who were here in 99, should be captains by now. So I can make the assumption that the angry posts on this and other threads regarding retirement age belong to those who joined since 1999. Nice words boys!

Number Cruncher, it took you and me ten years, as First Officers, to earn our Commands here at Cathay. Have you read how that effort has been denigrated by some of these posters? Most who have only been here a short time, and probably joined since 99?

Do the 500 colleagues I enumerated above deserve their ridicule? Pprune has started to look like face book for adults. Names like Ramjet, Yeager, Mach Number, and so on, are tough sounding names. Number Cruncher do you remember those pilots in 99 who also talked tough at the time, but then forgot their words? Are you now suggesting that suddenly we who have been taking a principled stand all these years no longer matter or count?

Number Cruncher, for those who joined since 99, I ask you: did ASL or Cathay Freighters delay any of their Commands? Did any of them join on B Scale when their mates who joined a short time earlier did not? Did any of them have to endure the agony of taking a stand in 99? Has their pay ever been cut by 25% here at Cathay? Did any of their friends become 49ers?

You cant be suggesting that somehow only their concerns matter…and the rest of us can just sod off? Sure we signed a contract with age 55 retirement on it. Every one who has joined since 1993 also signed a contract they secretly didn't agree with. In both cases, the contracts need to evolve!

Number Cruncher on another post you used the word amoral. I don't agree with that characterization either. I think you got carried away.

ST is right in the sense that we all need to stick together, and work together, to get the best contract for us ALL! My concerns and those of my friends who have been here for 10 to 20 years also matter. Without our support, or the support of all the other pilot sub-groups there will be no unity and no agreement.

So I suggest some of you show more level thinking, and talk to those of us who have been taking a stand for the many years before you joined Cathay. Lose the angry tone. If you don’t understand that, you need to grow up. Your words reflect on us all, and those words are making us all look bad!

Intransitgent

22nd Mar 2008, 09:43

MACH.88 wrote:

We must first look at the contracts that we all signed when we came here. All with the exception of those on COS08 have a written retirement of 55. I know the company is known to change things when it suits them, so I can already hear guys muttering that.

Just because a group of employees signed a contract in a period prior to a new law being enacted, does not mean that group of (current) employees are forever excluded from benefiting under the new or revised law. That would mean the great majority of employees in any community would be prevented from any benefit intended when a government enacts or amends laws designed to protect and benefit the community.

Take for example the introduction of anti-discrimination laws in Australian, European, UK, Irish, Canadian and US legal systems: all were introduced and immediately applied to all citizens covered under the laws of the particular State.

There are exceptions to age discrimation allowed in all legal systems, but these are common sense exclusions such as for young actors playing a young person, or for Pilots and Bus drivers, which ensure they are retired at an age which protects the travelling public. These exclusions are governed by the licencing systems which mandate the maximum age allowed, NOT the employer or any previously signed contract.

However, despite new laws introduced in this way being applied across the board, they would rarely be applied retrospectively to previously retired employees where they retired under the provisions of their contract. This would cause significant disruption to current employees and possibly impose a significant cost to the employer for retraining etc.

Normally, the provisions of the contract should be amended when age discrimination law is introduced and prior to the employees retirement.

Please read on ...

The whole age discrimination argument is a farce because we signed on for it. Look at the case in Canada. A number of current and retired AC pilots took the company (AC) to court because they wanted age 65 (opposed to their contractual 60). They cried age discrimination. The high courts ruled against the pilots plainly stating that their retirement age is/was written in their contract. It was an agreement that they willingly signed and that was negotiated by their pilot union. Essentially, they were told that it was not a discriminatory issue and if they wanted the age changed, their union needed to renegotiate their COS.

It is my understanding that the AC case involved a group of guys, one of whom had already retired a couple of years earlier at age 60 (in 2003), in accordance with his contract and the then ICAO mandated maximum age?

The particular case argument hinged more around whether or not the age discrimination provisions should be applied retrospectively to an employee who had been retired as per his contract and in accordance with the ICAO mandated maximum age limit. Air Canada would otherwise have been subject to the age discrimination provisions, if ICAO had mandated age 65 prior to his retirement. There's a subtle, yet important distinction between the two ... as per the court's ruling against the retiree.

At the time of the hearing, ICAO and more importantly, Canadian Aviation Law, had still not yet increased the age for ATPL holders from 60 to 65.

President Bush only signed age 65 into US law in December 2007. The new US law does NOT allow pilots who've already turned 60 to reclaim their jobs or seniority either (the AC situation).

I am fairly certain that should age discrimination law be enacted in Hong Kong, Cathay Pacific Airways WILL be required to comply and allow all current employees the option of age 65 retirement.

The obvious question remains if and when this will happen? As for employees on other bases, the issue of juridiction is paramount and is the issue being fought out with the ongoing UK onshoring negotiations. These issues are far more complex.

ITG

BusyB

22nd Mar 2008, 17:49

Good post raven11:ok:

PanZa-Lead

23rd Mar 2008, 02:01

Good Post Raven 11:ok:

MACH.88

23rd Mar 2008, 02:21

Intransitgent, (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=220484)

Your post is very insightful. I'd have to check into it a bit further, but what is AC's current retirement age. Isn't it still 60 despite age 65 in Canada/USA. Would AC not be in contravention of Age Discrimination Laws by making its pilot group retire five years earlier than the ICAO mandate??

I am not exactly sure of AC's desires for pushing up their retirement age. Perhaps you have some buddies working there that could shed some light on the wants of the pilots vs. that of the company. Are they working towards an amicable agreement?

As for the issue of solidarity...

I think any issue that affects ANY of the pilot group should be looked at by the WHOLE group. How do you think we got ourselves in this situation? We need to look at issues on the basis of the GREATER GOOD, not what's in it for ME. CX has divided and conquered quite easily for some time now . We need to take down the walls (A vs B, Based vs. HK vs. LEP, etc.) that have divided the group for many years and REGROUP to STAND TOGETHER.

MACH.88

Arfur Dent

23rd Mar 2008, 08:18

Well said Raven. The NC has just got carried away and cannot see into the future any more than I can.
Those of us who got Commands within 5 years were just in the right place at the right time.
Send all of us 55+Trainers packing and that would help promotions wouldn't it NC??
BTW I have no problems with paying a 3-6 month salary to all FO/SO's in lieu of By-pass and retirement at 65.
Just need an agreed deal - that's all.............................

Mr. Bloggs

23rd Mar 2008, 09:36

Now this is just hearsay but I heard a First Officer just 3 months from Command was delayed a year. Can anyone confirm this?

If so, I don’t think 3-6 months will cut it.

The company can increase the retirement age to 65 but they must wear the bypass pay until all First Officers and Second Officers on COS 99 are Captains. Full stop in my opinion. If on COS 08, you are out of luck.

It only seems fair but I can’t see a 54 year old standing for that or anyone the rank of Captain. It’s all about me or what is in it for me.

Cathay agreed to by-pass pay, it’s time they followed the contract and not try to get out at the expense of others.

IMHO of course.:ok:

rhoshamboe

23rd Mar 2008, 12:08

So all you guys talking it up about taking a stand in '99 and fighting the good fight etc are advocating a "compromise" on bypass pay so you can get age 65?? Yep there's some real solidarity. Nice. There is already a mechanism for people to work through past 55. Why are you guys endorsing them cheaping out again??

stillalbatross

23rd Mar 2008, 12:11

Raven 11,

Let me see if I've got this right. Back in the 90's command stretched out to 8ish years from the 3 to 5 it was.
Post '99 joiners will be looking at 16 to 18 yrs to command, ASL added 3-4 of these as of April this year and RA65 will add another 4-6 in the coming 18 months and somehow this isn't as bad as the 8 year wait to command in the 90's?

Please explain:(

A decade longer than anyone endured in the 90's........ Right seat for most until into your late 40's, early 50's.................

You feel it is completely unjustified for there to be a degree of unhappiness?

Hiro Nakimura

23rd Mar 2008, 15:49

Jaglawyer
" Send all of us 55+Trainers packing and that would help promotions wouldn't it".

Well, for the first few months after you were retired, upgrades would slow down. But once you had been replaced, hopefully by those pilots in their 3rd and 4th decades of life, command rate would be faster than before as the number of command slots available are no longer restricted by those that choose to extend. If they really wanted or needed you that badly they would have offered A scales. They offer such inferior conditions so that the cost of extending you, with associated bypass pay, is not much greater than it would have been if they had upgraded an FO!

This recent generation of pilots is much younger than for the past decade so it is likely to have lots of C+Ters in their 30s and 40s. So I imagine with a little bit of forethought, CX could easily plan ahead for the occasional C+T dinosaur that approaches 55, to be replaced before he retires. The whole "get a greater PF mulitplier" by being in C+T does not apply to B scalers.

So yes after an initial hiccup, we will have lots more commands now that extendees aren't blocking training positions, basings etc. And it would be nice to be trained by pilots who don't complain about how many 1000s of options they got for their pay cut in 99. It would be nice to be trained by pilots who don't have pictures of porsches or ferraris in their wallet! It would be nice to be trained by guys who actually had to spend 10years getting their command, this decade.

raven11

24th Mar 2008, 02:39

Well Hiro, I guess you're ignoring my suggestion to lose the angry and nasty tone...

First of all, it took me and my colleagues 10 years plus to earn our commands (not three to eightish). That was after joining as direct entry first officers in our mid to late thirties. We were recruited as high time/mid career pilots. We joined in our "third decade" of life, so put up our four bars in the "fourth decade" of life. We didn't join as Second Officers in the "second decade" of life, so we spent 10 years+ in the right seat. Cathay didn't have a cadet programme until the early ninties, or hirer direct entry second officers until the mid nineties. Generally, in most but not all cases, the direct entry second officers hired were not hi-time pilots, and had no jet time.

I've never owned a porsche or ferrari (although I did own a mitsubishi space wagon once); after "three decades" of marriage, I'm still with my first wife (and intend to remain with her); I'm raising a family; never did well in the stock or real estate market; I'm not...how did you characterize it again...a dinosaur; and, I like to think of myself as a decent and honourable man.

I advocate we stick together and demand a decent and fair deal for us all. That way we, hopefully, can all be happy, and not just one group.

Lastly, I return your words to you with this thought: if Cathay needed Second and First Officers more than they needed Captains, Checkers. or Trainers...they would pay YOU full bypass pay!

So you see Hiro, unless you think you're more marketable, or that you can get a better deal or quicker command somewhere else, it makes god sense to stick together.

So I suggest we stop bickering with each other, and focus our energies on convincing the Company to give us all a fair deal.

missingblade

24th Mar 2008, 02:53

It should be quite clear to all what to do. Age 65 is coming, DEFO is happening, bases are disappearing etc.

Compensation for this is written in your contract if you joined before COS8. It's very simple. There is no need for bickering just as there is no need for negotiation on this. Full bypass as per contract must be paid to all affected.

I joined in my third decade, had plenty of jet time but still came as SO. I don't mind sitting here as FO till well into my fourth decade - but I must be compensated. NOBODY told me at my interviews that my projected career earnings will be substantially less due to above mentioned developments. If CX was honest about this I most likely would not have accepted the offer - simple career earnings math.
End of story.

PanZa-Lead

24th Mar 2008, 03:19

Once again .Ravin 11..:ok:

When I arrived at Cathay I was 35 and well expierenced. Commands were 3 to 4 years. With ASL etc. etc. my command went 9 years ( thats 9 yrs as a f/o..no second officer time in there). So I was a f/o longer than most of the young captains today.

I took it as that is Airline Life...timing is everything. I just got on with life and didn't do half the whinning one sees today.

When you join an airline, they don't promise you early commands and they don't promise you basings. If you come here expecting them, then you are very naive.

Airlines change with the times and so do management types and hence contracts change. I, like you, hate it but the only way to change it is to stand together and stop whinging at one particular group.

Mr. Bloggs

24th Mar 2008, 03:26

Well I hope you are telling the AOA this because that is not what they are doing. It doesn’t affect me but the AOA is compromising your contract.:ugh::*

A reminder to all this affects. You are all on INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS and the AOA “CANNOT” negotiate on your behalf. If this goes through everybody below the rank of Captain on COS 99 will have to write a letter preferable from a Barrister that this is a degradation of your contract and you will not accept this. :ok::ok:

Ask for a reply so you know they received it, so CX can’t come back and say they never received it. It happened before.:confused:

Get your letters into your Barrister now, because you are going to need them.:ok:

I can only assume that all the Captains are writing into the AOA saying we need to negotiate this RA55 thing. :cool:

Which group has more members???:hmm:

Not willing to fight for it, then I don’t want to hear any complaining after it is over.:ouch::ouch:

Bypass pay is in your contract, only YOU can allow that change unless they give you a sign or be fired letter. No they wouldn’t do that would they?:{:{

Max86

24th Mar 2008, 04:27

Am I missing something here? In my contract there is provision for by pass pay, try changing that without my consent and that equals breach of contract.

Raven, please don't take this as "angry" but are you suggesting that I am reading this incorrectly? Should I agree to have this removed from my contract? If so, why?

Is there any reason why I should now accept a worse deal than the one I signed up for?

Does anyone have a proposal. What would people be prepared to accept?

Mr. Bloggs

24th Mar 2008, 05:04

If it is more favorable to someone coming up to RA55, then yes you should have that removed from your contract. I can’t believe you had to ask!:}:E

Maybe someone coming up to RA55 can offer some of his A Scale Salary to the junior officers as a form of payment for them giving up bypass pay.:uhoh:

That way no junior officer (F/0 or S/O on COS 99) will be financially disadvantaged and the Senior Pilot can work until 65 “or until he dies whichever comes first” on B Scale.:eek:

That way the Senior A Scale pilot can fund his own extension. When all the A Scale blokes are finished then the company funds all the junior officers until they get to the bottom of COS 99 and when the first COS 08 pilot receives his command, the by-pass pay stops. :rolleyes:

That way CX will not have to fund all the bypass pay and the guys wanting to extend will fund it themselves (in part) in the form of lower pay and benefits (i.e. no travel fund, B scale PF, post 97 medical, etc).:{:eek:

Seem fair????:{:{

Better find a good Barrister and send in your letter, cc it to the AOA.:confused:

Or is it better for the Junior Officers to give up by-pass pay and fund the extended retirement age? Let’s debate, nicely.:ok:

IMHO, the only thing wrong with the current system is that it is too expensive for CX. They can't afford it.:ugh:

Nothing is stopping CX from increasing the RA in Hong Kong now, it just costs them but they are not willing to pay. They want someone else to pay.:{

Just keep in mind you are all on individual contracts and YOU and ONLY YOU can have it reduced. Will CX put a letter out to all Officers below the rank of Captain, sign or be fired? That would never happen.:{

stillalbatross

24th Mar 2008, 06:39

Sorry Raven and Panza,

There is no angry tone here just a sad resignation as to how things will be. Whatever happened in the past is irrelevant, most guys joining now or who joined in the past 6-8 years were late 20's early 30's, had 4-6000 hrs and joined because command was happily around 10 yrs. (Not the green 21 year olds with 1000 hrs)

It is not going to be this 10 years, not by any stretch of the imagination and your subtle use of 10+ as your time to command doesn't remotely equal the 18 years many will be facing. If you were 10+ meaning you did 15 or 16 years to command then I apologise. However I am guessing it was more like 10 to 11.

I agree that the company needs captains more than F/O's or S/O's and so I agree that you carry considerably more weight in negotiations.

Post '99ers haven't forgotten negotiations in '99 when the Company didn't want to add ASL seniority straight in and instantly stretch command for new joiner S/Os by 3-4 years. While the AOA GC stated that new joiners S/Os were insignificant next to non union members in ASL and anyone post '99 should wait as long for command as the AOA deemed necessary.

Once again history from '99 seems to be repeating itself with the DPA rejecting the move to join the bottom of Cathay's seniority scale and the spectre that once again the AOA GC will slide in a bunch of non-union non-cathay people (nice blokes and good friends of theirs, mind you) and commands will stretch out a further 3-5 years. (hey it only affects post '99 joiners waiting on command so it doesn't affect anybody)

On top of RA65 which I don't have a problem with. My point is, while yes sticking together is a good thing, anyone who joined post '99 has had a union who constantly puts anyone else before us. If every post '99 union member quit and formed a pilot body that didn't put us second every time everyone would be a lot better off.

You could negotiate with what leverage you had which as captains would be plenty, and we could scrape together 1500 members, (everyone post '99 would join since they would see they are actually represented) and see how we go with reasonable numbers but with only f/o's and s/o's amongst us for the next 3-4 years (gambling maybe a few get Commands before RA 65).

The AOA would never see another new member of course but as has often been pointed out to me, new joiner AOA members are basically worthless anyway.

Hey it couldn't get much worse:ok: the 18 years isn't factoring in the the odd slowdown in the industry which could push out command times for post '99 guys to 20 or 25 years.

We'd have to go to 65 for command because we'd still be F/Oing at 55:)

Of course we could all just stick together instead.

PanZa-Lead

24th Mar 2008, 09:16

Albatross..A good and thoughtful post:ok:. I just hope that you all get compensated in the mean time as by-pass pay is in your contract.

christn

24th Mar 2008, 09:48

Historically CX has always managed to get what it wants (direct entry commands via ASL for example); if it wants RA65 it WILL happen. It is imperative that we realise this, forget petty squabbling amongst ourselves and ensure that we all have a say in how it is implemented.

Sleeve_of_Wizard

24th Mar 2008, 10:12

Raven, Panza, etc.........

I don't think Hiro and the Like are having a go at you guys, but the extendees on A scale whom, after at least 20 - 30 years in the Company should be able to afford retirement by now surely. I'd rather see my bypass pay being spent by ME in Wan Chai than by others.

Commands are at 8.5 years as i write......... so , if they do blow out a bit to take into account maybe SOME of the ASL captains leaving their comfy base wherever they are to take up Pax commands in Smog Kong, it'll still be around 9 or 10 years. I'm not taking into account the RA65 so maybe add on some for more junior guys , hopefully being balanced out by those who do in fact, resign.

I'm jetlagged, I might not make sense. I don't care. its my opinion.

VR-HFX

24th Mar 2008, 10:39

My straw poll tells me that there are not that many who would want to stay beyond 55 let alone to 65....at least in the small group of contemporaries who are still around.

May I suggest the AOA does its own ballot. Divide it into age groups...25-30, 30-35 etc and ask them. The company should do the same.

If it is only a very small group that wants to meet the Grim Reaper in HK or in a crew bunk, then it is a non-issue.

FWIW, I wouldn't want my kids flying with me when I am 65...and I'm sure they would be sensible enough to choose another airline if that was a reality.

Raven...I agree.

parabellum

24th Mar 2008, 11:25

I'm curious, do CX pay bypass pay to FOs who have been bypassed for a command slot but who have not actually demonstrated that they are ready for a command, i.e passed a command course?
If a bypassed FO subsequently does not make it the first time around does he/she have to return the bypass pay?

Max86

24th Mar 2008, 11:32

HFX, When people have to make up their own mind when to retire they just can't do it. The fear of walking away from the salary, regardless of wealth, is just to hard. So what you end up with is most people staying right to the end or going out medically.

Sad but true.

Numero Crunchero

24th Mar 2008, 12:00

A survey was done on BA pilots about their intentions wrt retirement age. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the closer to 55 the more likely they were to extend. It seems like people always planned only to work maybe 2 or 3 years more. Its human nature I guess...always just about to leave!

The fairest solution involves fair treatment for those going beyond 55 with fair compensation for those who are bypassed. CX has saved so much in pilot remuneration with B scales and with competitor lagging salaries that it can easily afford to increase its contractual obligation to those bypassed. Still, much depends on the valuation of "lost opportunities".

The solution
Its quite simple...working beyond 55 on current terms and conditions.

Bypass pay to equivalent delayed rank and promotion to bypassed rank. That means that your second year of command bypass should be to CN2, third year to SCN1 etc and then your eventual promotion should be to appropriate rank eg SCN2. Only in this way will there be no financial penalty to CoS99 employees for CX wanting to increase RA.

I think both Raven and Albatross make good points...both A scalers and B scalers have the right to feel aggrieved. However trying to prove to each other who is more 'right' and justified is fruitless....reminds me of a monty python sketch(I think?) "Luxury! When I was a lad I used to have to get up before I went to bed...." My point is, who wins on the most aggrieved game?

I started this thread as I didn't want to see expectations 'managed down' on bypass pay. Its not up to A scalers to pay for bypass pay nor is it fair for B scalers to just 'suck it up'. If (when?) some compromise bypass deal appears, we all get one vote and then the majority of us will determine what is right and fair.

zulapels

24th Mar 2008, 12:22

RA 65 win/win :

All on the same scale.
A-Scale incl. P fund.

Might not cost a dime compaired to the cost of over time pay, sickness, people leaving, don't care attitude and sticking to the contract.

A-scale for all July 1st. :O

Ex Douglas Driver

24th Mar 2008, 12:43

Bypass pay to equivalent delayed rank and promotion to bypassed rank. That means that your second year of command bypass should be to CN2, third year to SCN1 etc and then your eventual promotion should be to appropriate rank eg SCN2. Only in this way will there be no financial penalty to CoS99 employees for CX wanting to increase RA.

I agree!! We should not negotiate away bypass pay for what would only be short term financial gain. If a lump sum was to be offered in reparation, it would most likely be for less than the gross amount expected to be paid over a career.

This should be applied to all forms of bypass pay, included the situation where SOs are being promoted out of seniority. There is no fairness in the situation where a less senior officer reaches FO1 first, only due to being allocated the Airbus upon joining, and that he isn't being delayed by waiting for the 777 training system. At least financial equity will help compensate for the loss of career progression.

Standby, a pig just flew by the window. The lack of smog must have brought it out.... No worry, it'll contract lung cancer when the wind swings back, so won't be making any more trips.

jonathon68

24th Mar 2008, 16:31

Retirement age 65, means different things to every individual pilot in CX.

To most 50+ year old senior Captain's it is a "no brainer" to continue flying beyond 55, even on "B scales", when you compare CX SC17 + benefits to the alternatives. The hassle of adapting to a different employer after decades with CX is also a significant deterrant to going elsewhere.

But to the rest of us, the delayed progression and reduced opportunities will come at different costs.

Many Captains of my generation will not be able to take advantage of anticipated basing vacancies until years later than previously expected. Worst case, the highly desirable bases such as AKL, PER, BNE, YVR, LHR etc will be rarely available for an extra 5-10 years. We will all vote against RA65, since bypass pay doesn't help our position.

Almost all F/O's and S/O's (who joined before 01/01/2008) will see their progression to command delayed. For some senior F/O's the delay will be maybe a year, but for others it could be a significant delay, maybe 5 years or so. These people are the vast majority of the CX pilot numbers, and they need significant compensation to vote away bypass pay for RA65.

It is important for all members to communicate strongly their concerns to the Committe at this time. You need to work out exactly what an increase to retirement age 65 will personally cost you, and do not sell yourselves short.

Why not consider a "softly-softly" increase to retirement age, such as a phased in increase of an extra 1 year service every 2-3 years? For example, RA 56 now, RA 57 in 2011, RA 58 in 2014 etc.

This is a major issue, so get your mates involved as well. Call and email anyone you know on the GC. If your interests are not adequetely protected and compensated, you will really live to regret this.

Why don't we just sh*t can this whole issue and stick with the current RA55/bypass pay until we have a deal on pay?

:oh::oh::oh::oh::oh:

NewEssO

24th Mar 2008, 17:02

5-10 years delay on basing opportunity is a big fkn deal!!

Loopdeloop

24th Mar 2008, 21:23

I agree with NC's suggestion re the pay but obviously the company won't. However, if we could come to a deal like that but agreed that bypass pay would only be paid to an F/O who's spent 9 years in the company then there could be a possibility of agreement. After all, NR keeps on telling us that there will be little change to command times should the retirement age increase, so it will be a no cost option if he has belief in what he's writing. His missive a week or so ago said " the company is genuinely committed to significant growth over the next 10 years and that a change in retirement age will not unduly slow their career progression" so let him put his money where his mouth is.

Numero Crunchero

24th Mar 2008, 21:33

jonathon, good post!

Parrabellum, I can answer your first question. Unlike SOs, all FOs are entitled or qualified for bypass pay UNLESS they are cat D. I know of some FOs who have been getting bypass for years as they wait for a chance to be reassessed from C/B to A.
As to the second question, I believe if you were meant to get it you keep it till you are no longer qualified. I have heard some 'urban legends' of people having to repay bypass - if this has happened please post here or PM me. In the past CX has been pretty rigorous in paying it to whom it believes is entitled to it.

I think the urgan legends have originated from CX delaying paying bypass pay until it knows who is entitled to it. This would occur if more candidates are on command course than there are extendees. This would happen quite often as most of the extendee entitled FOs on bypass pay could be cat B or C leaving only a few extendees generating bypass pay for current command upgrades.
Choosing a later course over an earlier course CX interprets as the candidate not being entitled to bypass pay between the course dates, even though that is not strictly iaw our CoS. Before you rant and rave about this think about based FOs who stay as FOs for lifestyle. Should they get command bypass pay if they have deliberately knocked back a Hong Kong command course? The CX view is that any voluntary delay to your command removes your eligibility to bypass pay until your actual command course start date!

I believe the same principle is applied for SO to FO upgrades. As far as I am aware, SOs can choose to upgrade on whatever course they want. Where the disputes arises is from the availability of 'long' or 'short' courses. This is not in the principle or intent of bypass pay, IMO, but as long as some SO is getting bypass pay the aircrew body as a whole hasn't suffered pecuniary loss. The wording is vague enough to allow much latitude in how CX interprets the bypass pay provision. With pilots likely to get up to a year or so of FO bypass pay and up to 3-5 years of command bypass pay, for the most affected, it is definitely a section of our CoS that needs to be cleared up and made transparent!

Clear as mud?

Sqwak7700

25th Mar 2008, 22:00

I think that extending to 65 from 55 will probably delay most people's captain upgrade to at least 3 to 5 years.

If you consider that the company continues expanding and that some people will not extend/make it to 65, then I think 4 years is a good average.

We then take this 4 years and add it to every FO's seniority who joined before 2008. This means that if you are year 3 SFO, you now jump to year 7, and so on. This takes care of everyone who would be dalayed an upgrade.

If you are an SO, then you assume 3 years on SO scale, then the normal progression to FO scales. So SO year 1 would jump to SFO 1.

Does that make sense? Seems perfectly fair to me. :O

Numero Crunchero

17th Apr 2008, 05:27

I hope what I have heard is not true, but it seems our AOA leadership is happily supporting a proposal for A scales to take a little cut in salary so that we can all work beyond 55. Its ok though, you will only have to work an extra 3-5 months past 55 to recover the paycuts.

Its not all bad news...there will be some payrise for B scalers and C+Ters - not sure how you can give a C+Ter a paycut and a payrise at the same time?

I guess the zoologist is trying to get as many deals completed as he can before the next GC changeover!

Humber10

17th Apr 2008, 06:05

the mind boggles, why the hell do we have to erode our conditions??:ugh: What will it be next year, 2 crew ULR split duty......

christn

17th Apr 2008, 08:20

NC, is that an immediate paycut or when reaching 55?

Max86

17th Apr 2008, 08:58

Well, I guess all this would have to go to a vote and from where I'm sitting it would struggle to get up.

As far as the upgrade delay goes, I estimate that with RA65 in place, it will add an extra 7 years. Reason being, given the upward trend of oil prices I'm doubtful that CX or any other airline will expand significantly in the foreseeable future.

Numero Crunchero

17th Apr 2008, 10:56

christn,
not sure. Still at the rumour stage...discussions between AOA and CX on this topic Mon-Wed next week. Probably on earnings after 55 I suspect but that is complete conjecture.

Max86,
you could be surprised. Lets say that CX says you will get 5% backdated to 1/1/08, another 5-10% next Jan, increase in C+ters allowance and then a paycut for A scales after 55. Tell me now how many people would vote against it! Less than 400 A scalers out of 2300 pilots, and of those 400 A scalers many are in C+T and might vote for it as it would lead to a payrise and the ability to work past 55 on B+ scales! I can't see the 1900 B and C scalers being overly concerned with reduced remuneration beyond 55 for A scales.

So yes it will be up to a popular vote but I am sure it will be presented as a "your only chance at a payrise so don't vote no" option - bit like the last 49ers vote. Management only have this GC to negotiate with for another 5 months so I suspect a few more deals will be forthcoming!

SAD

17th Apr 2008, 20:12

NC

The way you been talking lately, it appears you have regrets about how the 49ers were handled by the AOA, is that a correct assumption?

missingblade

18th Apr 2008, 02:23

Jonathon68 - you wrote:

Why not consider a "softly-softly" increase to retirement age, such as a phased in increase of an extra 1 year service every 2-3 years? For example, RA 56 now, RA 57 in 2011, RA 58 in 2014 etc.

How does this help the most affected - ie most junior guys?? All it does is unevenly spread the pain. Which won't do anything to reunite the crew body.

Max86

18th Apr 2008, 04:52

Always appreciate you posts NC, not sure I agree with you on this one. The way I see it is that at most, CX would offer about 10% and based on previous offers even that is probably ambitious. In addition it won't be an immediate offer, it would be staged.

Hardly think this type of money comes anywhere near compensating the junior guys for the hit they will take to their careers and projected earnings.

Some would say that having the option to work until 65 represents some form of financial value. I am of the view that junior guys simply can't plan that far out these days. Telling a guy in his 30's that he may get some financial gain 20+ years down the track is a bit of a joke,

boxjockey

18th Apr 2008, 05:19

Just keep things the way they are. Let us junior guys take advantage of bypass pay, which in already in our contracts. I have a very bad feeling about the outcome of this.

box

Mr. Bloggs

18th Apr 2008, 07:49

Whatever the AOA presents to you, you can always decline it. Remember everyone is on an individual contract.:ok:

If you are not happy with it, write to the GMA stating you will not accept the new change to your contract.:D

If you have the courage that is. :eek:

Max86

18th Apr 2008, 10:43

Mr Bloogs

Courage?? Why would you think anyone would fear writing a letter to the AOA.

If you think people fear you or anyone else associated the AOA you are sadly mistaken.

iceman50

18th Apr 2008, 11:04

For the "my command is now going to be delayed for x years" brigade how many of you joined during the dispute? For those that did join during the dispute then you do not really have anything to complain about as "we told you so".:rolleyes:

Also please tell me where it says in your contract that you will get a command after 7-8 years?

404 Titan

18th Apr 2008, 11:40

iceman50

It is one thing having your command delayed 1-2 years because of 911 & SARS. It is a completely different matter having your command delayed because the company is wanting to change your contract. If the company wants age 65, there is a provision for that in our contract that allows them to do that right now. It’s called bypass pay. Of course they don’t want that now as it doesn’t suite them, i.e. they want their cake and eat it too.:yuk:

PS: No I didn’t join during the ban.

Apple Tree Yard

18th Apr 2008, 14:16

...many aspects of our contracts have been changed arbitrarily by the company. For the A scalers, it was their expectations of a market leading salary. For B scalers/new joiners, it is now time to command. Either we all fight together....or we will hang together. Not much doubt as to which option will prevail...:(

Five Green

18th Apr 2008, 17:48

Apple Tree:

For the A scalers, it was their expectations of a market leading salary.I for one would like to see the contract language that guaranteed you market leading salary ? If it was not written that way exactly in your contract and was only an "expectation" then you cannot really compare it to the retirement age issue. The retirement age was written into our contracts. It affects all manner of the job. No matter what your prediction of how it will increase time to command, it will increase.

Please let me be clear I am on your side when you express concern over your pay not keeping up to the industry. However please do not muddy the issue of retirement by trying to compare apples to oranges.

Also, try and stay positive. If the company does not offer a reasonable deal to accept retirement age 65, then we vote no. If it is changed without agreement then that is something that can easily be defended in court. Also we can wait under the current contract until the courts decide. Even if it takes years !!

Pee Bee:

I sympathise with you that those that joined under the ban, have little or no grounds to object to anything. They should be dealt with as a separate group on their own with the company.

However there are plenty of us that did not join under that ban that are directly affected by this. So for us please distinguish between other politically sensitive groups !!

Ice Man:

This is not about a guarantee of command. However there is legal, ethical and moral grounds to defend the argument that many officers will be disadvantaged by an increase in retirement age. In any situation this will decrease career earnings on a per year percentage (ie you will work longer but the total amount divided by the number of years worked will be LESS per year)

FG