AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal

[ACMS]

Pot of Gold at 65?

huh............I'm not expecting anything big from this company.

All I'm saying is that I too will HAVE to extend past 55 just to live. And I'll bet ALL of you young ones will too.

If I had a dollar for every 53 yo Pilot that told me they would stop flying for CX at 55 I wouldn't be faced with this propect.

I mean how many retirees at 55 declined an extension? Must be only a few, nearly all have taken the deal.

Lets face facts here, most WILL take the deal.

So lets stop bull****ting ourselves shall we and JUST NEGOTIATE A PROPER package for all past 55.

[Dragon69]

ACMS

Have you not been a captain for a while? So how have a handful of extendees affected you financially to the point where you have to work past 55 "to just live"!

In Qantas the senior S/O's get more than the junior F/O's don't they?
You blokes have got to stop your bitching.


You're certainly correct, lets stop B:mad:S:mad: you make quite a bit more than 99% of captains at other airlines, so you should certainly heed your own advice.

You spout union stuff when it certainly suits you, but when it doesn't suit your agenda, f:mad: union values....what a top bloke you are :yuk::yuk::yuk:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Liam

So when you say "Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition" you really mean the Non-Capts should drop BBP from their contracts in return for RA65
BPP is a very valuable inclusion in your contract, it has worth, however you cannot reasonably expect to be paid BPP if RA65 is in everybody's contract. I am saying that there has to be some compensation for BPP and it should go to those effected by the changes. Previous posts have the suggestions but at the end of the day it should be collectively bargained. The GC have many different costed options from what they tell us in newsletters. Get something positive for BPP. I do agree with your last paragraph in general Liam

AnthraCX Google is your friend here, but essentially the judge ruled that an employer does not have the right to unilaterally change your contract without your consent.
This is why your boss is contemplating giving you a choice, you can stay on your current contract with BPP or choose RA65 with no BPP, some other nasties are there as well. Personally I think his plan is flawed because ultimately he is still age discriminating with different pay scales based on age and indeed just having contracts with differing age criteria is probably illegal in many countries we have crew based in.

Firewall
How about disappointed in the myopic stupidity that typifies the Cathay Pacific Pilot. Harsh but essentially true, how about these classics
How does a new contract 65 no BPP and 55 get BPP have anything to do with the argument? HMMMM

Tiger321
You don't have to retire at 55 now either - you just have to change jobs.
The CX gig ends at 55 for anybody pre COS08.
You can keep flying after that anywhere you like
With attitudes like this it is no wonder discrimination laws are evolving

So a year 9 S/O (which RA65 would obviously introduce) would take a 10K 25% pay cut to become a year 1 J/FO so you senior members could get your pot of gold. And the AOA supports this? Nice. The 1500 crew who joined after 99 need a union that supports them.
Typifies the jealous envy in the young angry men, you have a union aready supporting you and all members (are you one). They even understand COSAP 94 COS 99 OBS SIGN OR BE FIRED, something you might need to be educated on,

History lessons can be very important tools, something the proposers of the motion have not considered, their short sighted poorly thought out strategy has given the company incentive to seriously contemplate a contract choice lobbing in the mailboxes. The company have done their homework, they know virtually everyone when faced with a choice of 55 or 65 will sign to 65. I am not saying that is a legal approach or it will work and it may well be the start of legal action unprecedented in CX, however we need a strong union intact to mount a challenge and the petition backers are dividing the membership.

[Liam Gallagher]

You say..."I am saying that there has to be some compensation for BPP..." but you also say .."however you cannot reasonably expect to be paid BPP if RA65 is in everbodys contract."

I would imagine there is agreement on the first of your comments and the second would be a complex legal argument worthy of an additional thread (but please don't)

However, in a nutshell your 2 quotes have identified the problem with the funding. The AOA is putting it's money behind the argument RA55 is discriminatory and there is a fair chance that if that argument prevails: BPP will disappear. So what has happened to the compensation you speak of.... collateral damage, acceptable loss??

The membership should be asked; What policy do they want RA65 or BPP? (you can't have both). The funding of the Litigation is effectively making that decision through the backdoor; no discussion, debate, let alone a vote.

[tiger321]

Cyril,

Thanks for quoting me out of context in your last post. Had you added the rest of it you may have noticed that it was tongue in cheek. :ok:

The case for the company putting a new contract in the mailbox is a lousy one. Think about this logically - at a time when we are over crewed why would they want RA65? Perhaps a few years down the line when the "financial tsunamis" have passed and the A Scale is a thing of the past they will consider it. (Note: I am not pulling for the A scale to disappear)

You might counter that they will have no choice IF Charlie wins in court. True, but judging from round 1 in the courts a win for Charlie seems unlikely. Even if he did succeed how long will the legal wrangling go on for before we actually see RA65 in our contract?

This whole saga is not about RA65 it is about the rights and wrongs of the AOA paying for Charlies case.

Last year the membership voted on whether Capt XXX should receive some financial support from the membership after Topcover refused his LOL claim. Why then should the membership not vote on whether we should be paying for Charlies case? We are a democracy are we not?

By calling people who are working within the rules of the organisation but who happen to disagree with your point of view "the list of shame backers" it is you Sir who looks foolish.

[whodunnit2]

It has been suggested in this forum that we just accept RA65 without BPP.

Well I have another suggestion:

We leave RA55 in place until the most junior crew on COS99 has had an attempt at command! That way nobody is disadvantaged when RA65 comes in.

Extreme? Probably, but the two cases above are the opposite extremes. Idea 1 puts all junior crew at a disadvantage and idea 2 puts all senior crew in that boat.

Like it? You sure will if you are 42ish or younger. Approaching 50? You might not like it so much!

The solution lies somewhere in the middle. Get your creative hats on.

W2

[ACMS]

$6 million OZ


Holy crap Batman.

Sorry mate, but just like you I'm a B scaler and my PF ain't worth jack Shi:mad:

Even if I did stay till 65 ( which I don't plan to ) I'd be lucky to have around $6 mill HKD...............( now I have after 14 years 1.6 Million, so another 20 years 4 million total )

And yes............I was screwed over by quite a few CX decisions in the past, ASL being one.

So get over yourself and wake up mate.

We are not all A scale BTC's you know :ok:

[Kitsune]

Years ago there used to be something called 'The Whittle Formula' which is a simple way (had to be after all those nights in the Tannemor) of working out what you need for your pension pot. It assumes that your mortgage has been paid off, and that your snappers have graduated to the prison of their choice. All you need to do then is multiply the annual sum that you THINK you will require to live a comfortable life style by 23.5. The resulting (frightening) number will pay you the sum you first thought of for 40 years (inflation adjusted), allowing you to tip the vicar your last quid as you get lowered into the hole........

Start saving out of wages boys,.........NOW :cool:

[Arfur Dent]

Must be bigger than 23.5 now with the interest rates currently (and for the foreseeable future) being paid!
Probably the no. you first thought of times 35 or something similar. Who knows?
IE - for someone wanting to retire on £35K a year in UK, you would need £1.225 Million pension pot.
Good luck!!

[Night Watch]

Have just emailed to HKAOA to support the calling for a EGM.....

Put it to a vote and let the members decide.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

NIGHTWATCH

If you could kindly give a reasoned reply as to what you hope to achieve by withdrawing the funding.

[happy nightflyer]

A level playing field perhaps.

[Liam Gallagher]

Perhaps Night Watch (and others) can see that the AOA, whether they conciously realised it or not, have adopted the policy of giving away BPP in return for RA65; he would like this subtle, but significant, policy shift at least discussed...

Further, perhaps he feels funding this APPEAL doesn't represent value. Perhaps he sees the risk in relying on an argument that a piece of recent Legislation, despite being clearly written one way, should be applied another way. Perhaps he sees the risk that even if the Judge buys that argument, further argument will have to be raised to say that the Company's actions are done out of Ageism, not to achieve the legitimate business aim of the career progression of Junior Pilots locked into a Seniority System.... that same legitimate business aim and Seniority System that saw Charlie get his Command.

[Kitsune]

Succinctly put Liam. :D:D:D

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Still yet to see any logical posts giving sound reasons for not agreeing to fund the appeal. I understand the costs involved have been revised down to 15K GBP (confirmation required). The supporters of the motion need to show some honesty and admit it is their own career progression (or BPP retention collecting Capts wages for FO duties) and not the money the AOA is spending that is the core issue at stake. The supporters of the motion are in effect saying they support the companies blatant age discrimination practices and additionally have no confidence in the GC to run the finances of the AOA.

Are we going to call for a vote when the AOA need to buy office furniture or update the computers. Do we need a vote to send our reps on courses or to conferences on safety...........of course not that is a waste of time and effort just like this poorly thought out petition circulating at present.

[2 cents]

Cyril,

You're full of it.

You're posts here are doing much more harm than good for your cause. :ugh: But of course, most don't mind that!

[Liam Gallagher]

"Still yet to see any logical posts giving sound reasons for not agreeing to fund the appeal"

So being of questionable value and not in line with AOA policy are not sound reasons?

You have said previously.. "I am saying that there has to be some compensation for BPP" and now you say.. "or BPP retention collecting Capts wages for FO duties". Your thinking seems to be confused; on one hand you recognize FO's and SO's have their careers and earnings degraded by an increase in retirement age and should be compensated. On the other hand however, you are critical of them for taking, or wanting, the compensation.

AOA policy is not to sacrifice BPP for retirement age 65. No one is hiding the fact; that is because the Junior Crews are protecting their wallets. Are they wrong for doing so? You say they are endorsing the company's discriminatory policies... got a Court Order to back up that statement... problem is, Charlies currently got a Court Order that says it not discriminatory.

I know you don't see the need to answer questions; however;

1. The wording of the relevant Act seems pretty clear; it doesn't apply to those who fly foreign registered aircraft. I assume Charlie was aware of this first time round; what new evidence or argument is going to be introduced in the Appeal?

2. Assuming you get around that one; how do you negate the Defence of "legimate business practice"?

3. You say a cost of GBP15,000. Am I correct in assuming if the Appeal is unsuccessful the company's costs will need to be met; so we need to budget GBP30,000?... hardly office furniture...

4. Success will result in either no RA or RA65 and you are honest enough to admit that the BPP provision in our Contracts will become impotent;

(i) Is this in line with current AOA policy on RA?
(ii) If it is not; why should the membership fund it?

[whodunnit2]

Somebody give that man a round of applause :D

You expertly put into words what I am thinking.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

NOT THE SLIGHTEST BIT CONFUSED

Compensation for BPP Yes........Plenty of suggestions given
Continue paying BPP to those on a beach in Cairns collecting managers wages for doing the clerks job when he could do the managers job in HKG ....NO

[Liam Gallagher]

"Continue paying BPP to those on a beach in Cairns collecting managers wages for doing the clerks job when he could do the managers job in HKG"

I am sure between the 2 of us we could waste a ton of bandwith discussing the inadequacies of our Contracts.... but since we live in the real world how about we deal with the Contract as written, or in this case how it is applied. Should you not like the way the company is applying the Contract as regards who gets BPP, I suggest you take up with Mr Rhodes rather than take issue with any Junior Pilot you may stumble across.

Whilst you steel yourselve to meet with Mr Rhodes, how about dealing with my 4 questions.....

[raven11]

Cyril,

Give it up mate...they're not listening...they don't care..you're wasting your time. They don't respect you, or me.
They want their bypass pay, they want to make a point, and they want it all now! They are the majority.

I've had enough. I say let them have their vote, then we ("the minority") can put an end to this indignity where we must beg for help from our own Union! Cyril, we will then have no choice but to end this sham and quit their AOA. Their membership will then be free of us pesky old guys, and free to then demand bypass pay, and plenty of it, for all those found unsuitable, or sitting on a base.

They can then call the AOA what it would then be: a fragment. It will no longer be the AOA. They can call it the AOF (Aircrew Officers Fragment) of JAF (Junior Pilots Fragment).

You know what the Company's response will be to their fractured union:Z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z!
The Company will ignore them, and their broken Union, continue to extend guys on reduced terms, and all with no bypass pay. The Company will do this because they can...because the membership will have lost what little leverage they had. The leverage of unity.

But don't tell them that. What do we know? You see, this is all about democracy....

It makes me proud to be in the same Union as them, how about you?

They'll kill any chance of getting their bypass pay, and they'll permanently weaken and kill the union. But after all Cyril, they are the majority of "the membership", so I guess that means they can vote on any abhorrent policy, just as long as it favours them..."the membership".

Cyril, I know that you've been a paying member of the AOA for two decades, but you're not in "the membership" mate, and neither am I. Surely you must understand this, their main line of argument...it has been going on for 15 pages now: It's all about "the membership"...THEIR MEMBERSHIP!

But what about you and I you say? Well Cyril, we're nothing, we're chopped liver mate! Our role ended after we hired them and trained them. We don't count in their Union. Only they, the majority represent "the membership".

They feel resentful and angry and jealous. They want us older "ex-members" to take our 6 million Oz, assorted pots of gold, private jets, yachts, cars, and everything else we've plundered and stolen, and just quit! According to their posts on these pages, we've been hording it long enough now, enough is enough...it's their turn! After all, they have been waiting several years now, and we're in their way!

So Cyril, just give it up. They're not listening and they don't care. So let them cut off their nose to spite their face. Let them have their tantrum and throw the toys out of the crib.

I'm serious mate...let them!

[Nullaman]

Raven old chap

The expression 'hitting the nail on the head' comes to mind.

Sadly the expression 'divide and rule' follows close behind.

I suspect the masses aren't listening and just don't wish to
:ugh:

N

[Liam Gallagher]

I would like to say that was a serious mature response worthy of an aircraft commander....

It would seem the AOA can be unified... but only if it agrees with you...

Are you sure Funding has been denied? You may have shot-off a bit prematurely... but then who hasn't;)

[CYRILJGROOVE]

I understand your frustration my friend but there is plenty of fight in this old dog and I refuse to quit the union, and never will. I will not let the industrial bullies commit to jettisoning one segment of the union just because they perceive they have the numbers to have a mutiny and pick on the numerical minority based upon the false pretext of democracy.

Your correct Raven 15 pages of debate and they still believe BPP should be paid if everyone has a unified retirement age. Any commonsense compromise is dismissed out of hand or they are so blinded they do not read it..

To want to go to war over 15-30K GBP when it is affordable and of little consequence versus the strong possibility of ending up with zip for BPP, splitting the union is the tactic of fools. Never mind RP07 expires at the end of this year just 10 months away and that is an issue that requires time and effort of the GC with a unified membership, but generation Y cannot see it. They want to be paid for a job they are not prepared to do.

Stick with it raven, stay in the AOA and help me make these naive people understand COS 94, COS 99 and RP01 were not negotiated, they were slipped in our mailboxes....no COS has been negotiated in around 20+ years. COS 09 has the potential to leave a very bitter pill in everyone's mouth if implemented without negotiation.

[Liam Gallagher]

It is somewhat concerning that you have (again) chosen not to answer my questions. I think they are germane to the debate... don't forget this is a debate and I accept there are some powerful arguments to fund this venture.

However, you say.... "Any commonsense compromise is dismissed out of hand or they are so blinded they do not read it."

Sorry, I have genuinely missed your commonsense compromise... what is it?

[boxjockey]

That's the whole point. There is no commonsense compromise. Follow our contracts and I'll be perfectly happy.

box

[CYRILJGROOVE]

read posts 244 259 272 278 just for starters
and just about every other post I made

[Liam Gallagher]

I take it you are referring to this "commonsense compromise"...

"As I said earlier, a defined benefit retirement scheme, pay rates, and all of the freighter jobs to those on our list in order, the old A Vs B scales are all issues worth resolving once and for all. Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition"

If I was from Mars and read that I would believe I have choice, either support the petition or sign a contract offering me A scale salary, A scale pension and no more DEC's. Be genuine, that's not what's on offer is it?

A successful litigation could offer another 10-15-20 yrs of A scale to you... but to Junior crew... a successful litigation could offer another 10-15-20 yrs of FO salaries on B and C scales... where's the compromise? Junior crew seem to be giving up a fair bit... what are you giving up in this "compromise"?

[iceman50]

Lots of fine words Liam, what exactly are YOU prepared to give up!

[FlexibleResponse]

Sometime fairly soon, the A Scalers will cease to exist.

It will be funny to see the B Scalers with no one to attack.

And even funnier to watch the C Scalers attack the B Scalers.

...and so on and on...but, such is life...

Will there ever com a time when professional pilots realize who their real enemy is? Perhaps not, as so many of us have our heads in the clouds and fail to see through the camouflage of our elusive scrub-hugging, devious and thieving true enemy.

Before you take aim and squeeze the trigger at what seems to be the enemy and an easy target, check your six...

The first rule of combat is "don't get shot".

[boxjockey]

Liam,

Spot on. To the other poster: Why should the junior crew NEED TO GIVE UP ANYTHING?! All we are asking is that the contract we all signed be followed. What you are asking for is another 10 years of the gravy train. We gain NOTHING by adopting age 65. The end. Follow the contract.

box

[Arfur Dent]

When is the time limit up for the 10% required to force an EGM? Anyone know? Put us all out of our misery!

[HardRock]

Returns petitioning for an EGM will be accepted until the close of business on 9 February.

[Arfur Dent]

Thanks for the info. We'll know soon enough then what 'The Membership' want for themselves....................:rolleyes:

[iceman50]

BOX

I'm sure Liam is NOT junior crew!

When you joined did you not do any research on Cathay! All of us have been wanting our contract to have been followed but it has not happened. Now everyone must give up on trying to regain anything they have lost, because Junior crew like you might suffer and that is not fair. Poor diddums.

How much have all of you "Paid" into the AOA and for how long?

[Liam Gallagher]

"Lots of fine words Liam, what exactly are YOU prepared to give up"

I am not the one proposing a "commonsense compromise".... my understanding of compromise is that both parties concede smaller items for a greater good... I am struggling to see what Cyril is giving up in his proposed compromise.

In all seriousness: Raven, and to a lesser extent, Cyril, are being unduly negative. Surely apathy will rule the day and even if the 10% of membership ask for a vote (which is far from certain); a smart GC will require 2/3's of the membership to vote for the motion to stop the funding... what chance on even getting 2/3's to vote... let alone vote to stop the funding.

I also take this opportunity to restate; Charlie's case has real merit and there are many arguments to fund it. I have posted 2 areas of concern that members seem to have; there are counter-arguments... let's hear them....

[Loopdeloop]

That seems to be a good point Liam.
With age 65 imposed with no bypass pay, Cyril et al gain the ability to work to 65 on the same pay, retaining a base as a Captain if they're on one, and give up nothing.
Anyone below the rank of Captain gains the ability to work for 65 but give up several years to command and many basing opportunities. They have to work an extra 2-3 years just to retire with the same pot of money. To put it another way, if they were planning on retiring at 55, they now have to work an extra 2-3 years for nothing. Is this a common sense compromise?

I'm nearly swayed by iceman's question about money paid into the AOA - I'm sure CM has paid more in over the years than this case will cost, but is this relevant?

I won't vote for the proposal to withdraw funding but once it's over we need a clear policy on the issue to be voted on by all the members. The GC currently think that the majority would support RA65 but they cannot know without a straightforward vote:
Do we want
a. RA65 with no bypass
b. RA55, adhere to the contract or
c. A negotiated compromise.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Currently BPP benefits only a minority of pilots in CX and it only has a limited time frame whilst being bypassed. Regrettably (for genuine by passed pilots) the company has chosen to implement BPP differently to the way it has done things in the past and they are paying BPP to many crew who have no intention of doing a command and want to enjoy the benefits of a base and command pay, now if you want to talk about gravy trains that is a gravy train that many want to keep on the rails.

RA 65 is going to happen at some stage in the near or medium future as there is to much social and litigation pressure to keep the discriminatory policies of CX continuing forever.

BPP is in the COS at present and it has value to certain individuals but not others and arguably it being paid to the wrong individuals. When I talk of compensation or compromise what is meant is that the compensation should be negotiated by your reps and many possibilities are out there. However it seems to not be considered that the opportunity for everyone to work to 65 is also a benefit that may be realized later on in life by the current younger members. No doubt short term impacts on promotion will occur but that is inevitable whenever RA65 is introduced. What is needed is a mechanism to compensate those effected, that is the difficult bit.

One thing you need to get your heads around is that it will not be in the current form of BPP if everyone goes to 65, it will mirror COS 08 i.e RA65 No BPP until extensions over 65!!.

Tell me Liam and friends, for example....You have a 35 year old B scale Capt (who is also being age discriminated at present, it just does not effect him yet) and he is offered to go to age 65 just like every other crew member may get offered to go to 65.........what is it exactly you want him to give up on or compromise on to go to 65, what is it you want him to give to the crew members junior to him, do you want to take salary from him, what is it exactly?

[SFGDOG]

Cyril et al.

BPP is not the issue. It is a red herring. The issue is simple. A change to RA 65 will increase the time to command for any current FO or SO by 5 to 10 years. Add this to the already gloomy forecasts for time to command and we are looking at a blowout of many years. I suspect if it was mooted when you or anybody else was still wearing one of those ranks, you might well have a different attitude to how attractive RA65 is.

You will never convince many, if any, FO's or SO's to voluntarily vote away that many years to command unless they are compensated for the loss of income due to that delay. Call it self interest if you like, but lets be honest, that's human nature and I suspect everyone primarily operates from that perspective. The company will not offer that compensation, especially in the current environment, so any compromise is unlikely. The chances of two thirds of the current AOA membership voting the way you would like is just not going to happen. Most would rather take there chances that any legislation in Hong Kong is some way off.

Currently, it is financially very hard to make ends meet if you are a junior officer with a family in Hong Kong or even on a base. For most, the only opportunity to save will come with promotion to Captain. Whilst there is some sympathy for guys who are approaching 55 now, there is simply no way a junior officer could voluntarily except RA65 because the cost to that Officer and his family is considerable. As it has been explained on this forum, it would amount to working for several years for free. At the moment the company is getting smaller, therefore, natural attrition is the only hope a junior officer has of being promoted any time in the foreseable future.

As an aside, BPP will vanish over the next few years as those on extensions have there contracts expire and not renewed. There are no new extensions at the moment, and there is little chance of any in the future, except on the 400, but that is only a short term requirement from the company. CX has little or no need to extend anyone at the moment, and good commercial reasons not to. Even without BPP, it is cheaper to employ a B scale Capt 1 then a B scale 17.

So by all means, fire away on this forum, but you are wasting your time if you are trying to convince any junior officer that RA 65 will be good for them.

[mephisto88]

My preference would be answer C.

I believe that a negotiated compromise where the benefits and the disadvantages are more evenly distributed amongst the different crew categories would be the fairest solution.

It is somewhat idealistic to expect all sides of the aircrew complement to gain an advantage when negotiating with the Company. They too will want their pound of flesh, so a compromise to some extent will no doubt be inevitable.

The Company too will realise that the current financial dramas will not last, then it will be expansion, max training and full speed ahead. This will only occur if they are able to put enough bums on cockpit seats. If they are able to retain more trainers after age 55, the previously experienced limitations on the capacity of the training machine can be alleviated to some degree, . Demographically it is obvious, many of the CT are somewhat ancient, IIRC from a recent AOA email, some 40% of the C&Ters are on extension, ergo before the upturn occurs, the Company will also want to sort this aspect of retention beyond 55 for all crew, in order to prevent what they see as expensive liabilities, but what we know as valuable resources, from taking up golf too early.

However, we may need to consider that if the Company perceive that we need it more than they do, then our benefit may not be as great as if the AOA were negotiating perhaps later, when the boot returns to our foot, such that the negotiations may be more on the AOA's terms.

So it brings us back to the question of - is it correct to pursue the appeal with AOA funds in the current industrial and financial climate? I guess we will all find out on or after Feb 10th whether the EGM motion has obtained the 10% support required to push the matter to a vote.

Incidentally, a previous poster queried whether the companies costs would also have to paid - I hear 3rd hand that as CX is not actually a plaintiff, merely an interested party, that paying any of their costs is unlikely. The AOA may perhaps be able to give people more accurate info on this aspect if they are contacted.

Either way, a unified AOA is going to have more sway than a fractured one, so again I would urge members that if it does come to a vote, to try and view the problem from the other persons shoes as well, then let the reasoned mature and logical head make the vote, rather than the emotional knee jerk response that some of our posters appear to be likely to make.

Clearly if the motion does not get the 10% support, then the system will also have worked as intended, and the GC and membership can move on to the next battle.

[Liam Gallagher]

"Incidentally, a previous poster queried whether the companies costs would also have to paid - I hear 3rd hand that as CX is not actually a plaintiff, merely an interested party, that paying any of their costs is unlikely".

First hand information is dangerous enough; 3rd hand is Taliban stuff. The AOA will be bankrolling the person trying to Appeal the original decision, presumably Charlie. If it is to be heard in the Court of Appeal, the person moving the case is the Applicant. On the otherside, there will be someone else who will be defending the Application; the Respondent. It is hard to see anyone fulfilling the role of Respondent other than Charlie's employers. How else can he get an enforcable Order from the Court to make CX continue to employ him? As with all Courts; should you lose you can expect a Cost Order to follow payable to somebody...

You speak of a "negotiated compromise"... I assume you mean a compromise between the Pilots and the Company. Everyone wants to see that; the devil's in the detail.. Consider this, should any deal involve Charlie not remaining on his current Salary and Pension (A-scale); then surely that is ageism and the Litigation will continue... why would the company cut a deal on that basis?

Cyril: There are 2 compromises here, you are blurring them. You are proposing a commonsense compromise between the members to see Charlie's Appeal funded. The example of the 35 yr B-scale Capt is the resolution of the whole RA question. That will be a compromise between the Company and the pilot body as a whole. In the compromise you propose; those who oppose funding should bend over and in return you will support them in a push for A-scales, A scale provident fund and 47 virgins... sounds to me like work hard for your masters on earth and you will get your rewards in heaven...

Loopdeloop; the argument about Charlie paying his fees is persuasive. However, should it apply if what he is trying to achieve will result in something not in line with AOA policy ie. RA 65 no BPP.

SFGDOG... what you say makes sense to me; However, what if a UK Court does rule RA55 is Age Discrimination. Are you going to go public and say; I am only against Discrimination as long as it doesn't cost me anything? Don't seem to remember that bit in Dr King's speech.

and if you've bothered enough to read this far... Apathy will prevail.... Funding will go ahead...

[Loopdeloop]

Cyril, this is not just a Capt vs F/O scenario and you might be surprised to find that many 35 yr old B scale Capts would vote for RA55! With RA 55 and no extensions, our newest captain would be on his chosen base in minutes, particularly if it's a European base he's after. With RA 65, it'll take an extra 10-15 years. Unlike the time to command, which would be less than 10, if the company were forced to increase RA to 65 on bases but left Hkg as it is, basings would become very scarce indeed.

[SFGDOG]

Liam,

I have heard this discrimination argument used but I am wondering if it is just a convenient excuse. Lets not confuse this with other matters such as racism and the like. Lets face it, many other employees in different occupations around the world, including pilots work fixed term contracts. Ours just happens to end at 55. Is it discrimination when their contract expires as well? Does a expat lawyer/engineer/accountant in Hong Kong who has a contract not renewed at the moment whilst, more junior/cheaper employees are retained have legal recourse for discrimination? Unlikely. It's just business.

I am afraid the only guys I have any real sympathy for are the first B scalers coming up to 55 and the poor SO/FO with a family who can't pay his bills. They have had marginal renumeration from the commencement of their CX employment. If an A scaler has squandered his/her money through poor life choices or doesn't want to stop being called Captain than that is just hard luck in my humble opinion because their seniority doesn't give them the right to, in effect, cause such a detrimental impact on their junior colleagues.

We have a contract, lets stick with it until we have no alternative. We have no bargaining power with the company, so lets not delude ourselves that we can negotiate any worthwhile compromise. They are solving the BPP issue themselves by not extending anymore pilots.

[Apple Tree Yard]

hmmm, 'we have a contract, lets' stick to it'...?? err, what part of the contract do you want to stick to..? the bit about age 55? of course, because THAT's the bit that causes you a bit of a problem. Tell you what, when CX decided to break my contract in ohhh, just about every other area, the 55 bit really didn't matter all that much either at that point. On top of that, the old 'discrimination' thing is becoming a bit of an issue now...so, basically, tough luck. Age 65 is inevitable, so get over it. In case you haven't noticed...there are a WHOLE bunch of Captains in the company well over that age already. The issue has been settled...you just don't want to realise it. ;)

ps. why would CX get rid of all it's experience...just for other companies to benefit from it? you guys are going to bludgeon yourselves out of any negotiated settlement on this issue...and lose the whole lot. brilliant. :ugh:

[Liam Gallagher]

"I have heard this discrimination argument used but I am wondering if it is just a convenient excuse.."

As far as the Funding goes "convenient excuse" or not discrimination is what this is soley about. If Charlie wins; the company will not be able to force a UK based pilot to retire, or take a pay cut due to age, or use the 3 month clause to impose a new contract because he is of a certain age. As night follows day, this ruling will be used on the European bases and could possibly extend through to OZ and NZ given they have historically linked legal systems. HK could get very interesting on the Corporate Governance front. Basically, the Genie is out of the bottle and there will be nothing to negotiate. Whether you consider this a good thing or bad thing is very much personal choice.

The flip side is of course; Charlie loses. I would guess not a lot will change. Perhaps the company will go even more stingy with extendees... not sure. It will however, put to bed the "discrimination" argument for a time.

ATY; great summary of the obvious:rolleyes:... are you arguing for "Funding" or against?

[Kitsune]

IF the appeal is 'won', there is a whole new can of worms available freely to all.... which the Co. may solve by closing the EU bases. If the CofA rule that UK law has jurisdiction in the case of a foreign tailed aircraft crew, it follows that UK tax law can/will also apply, the EU is the same......:eek:

[Liam Gallagher]

To succeed Charlie will have to not only get around the Foreign Registered issue, but also counter the Company's Defence; which I suspect will be robust. So, a successful Appeal is far more difficult than some posters will have you believe.

Undoubtedly a successful Appeal could cause the NI issue to be re-visited: I think the tax issue has at least been "road-mapped" and shouldn't change much.

However, the compensation for those forced to retire and/or those who have been working on reduced pay/no pension solely because of their age will be "eye-watering" for the company; not sure what the company's response will be (apart from a House of Lord's appeal.. a la George Crofts)...

My understanding is that the Employment Tribunal had limitations for unfair dismissal awards (Crofts); I understand no such limitation exist for Discrimination.

HBOS manager claims bankers ridiculed her with sex 'slur' | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2108055.ece)

In case the link doesn't work, it is a Muslim female banker suing HBOS for GBP16.7m for Racial and sexual harassment....hence the phrase... "the Genie will be out of bottle.." I would guess the Europeans and ultimately the Ozzies and Kiwis will not look kindly upon any proven Discrimination.... that of course is many years away..

In the meantime apathy will rule... if anyone can be @rsed..

Just thought... MFL claiming damages for "hurt feelings"... heck.. I would fund that case myself for pure entertainment value:}

[raven11]

Liam,

I'll respond to your slur from the CX 872 thread here.

So my last post got to you did it?

I think someone that posts several times a day, and who's total post count is over 350, shouldn't be throwing stones at someone who's made 44 posts. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle.....

It's funny how people see things the way they want to. Watching that video didn't remind me of the older guys in this debate. But rather the foot-stomping attempts by the junior pilots demanding a vote!

After all Liam, you're the one repeatedly slamming your hand down and demanding responses from Cyril.

I've stated my points, and you've stated yours (ad nauseam). So let's wait and see if your side gets 10 percent...which I predict you will. You can then declare victory, and we'll go backwards from there as we proceed to a bitter EGM vote.

Well done.

Raven

[Liam Gallagher]

"I've stated my points, and you've stated yours (ad nauseam). So let's wait and see if your side gets 10 percent...which I predict you will. You can then declare victory, and we'll go backwards from there as we proceed to a bitter EGM vote."

I think this debate has been useful. I would like to see the 10% achieved as I feel the membership has to then tackle the issues the funding raises. I will not proclaim that as a victory. I am a bit uncomfortable with the "your side" comment, because should this actually come to a vote, I have purposefully kept an open mind and have no idea as to which way I would vote.

Experience has shown an apathetic turnout for AOA votes, so any vote will be determined by the wording and the subsequent 50 or 66% majority required. Should funding be denied or endorsed by an apathetic vote I wont be on here claiming a victory... in fact it will be a further endorsement for the "You get the Union you deserve" brigade...

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Liam and friends
You guys would be better off putting your efforts into stopping your junior mates falling over themselves taking freighter commands years out of seniority and screwing you over. That would be a gravy train you should try to stop or would you like BPP for that as well. Fellas your contract is a mess...concentrate to fix that up and stop wasting your time on something that in the overall scheme of things is unimportant but potentially harmful to unity

[Kitsune]

And how would you suggest 'stopping' them? Ever since 'B' scales were introduced CX has been every man for himself, which is just the way the management wants it. :cool:

[whodunnit2]

I think the point of BPP is being missed!
It is not in place so that you get Capt's pay to do an Fo's job as one of the "oldies" pointed out (I know that that is happening but hopefully the union will sort that out - thanks KJP!).

Yes, BPP hopefully compensates you to a small degree when the company bypass you but it's main purpose is surely to "encourage" the company to play by the rules. We all know that the only thing that gets our companies attention is $$$.

I think the GC screwed up by taking CM's case on. I say that because where are we going to stop after this? Everybody with a pending courtcase could apply for funds. However, since they have taken the case on I feel it would be wrong to now withdraw support for it. We would be no better than KJP and his band of merry men.

What we need next is to agree on a set of rules so that this doesn't happen again.

W2

[Cronus]

Thanks Cyril,

I've been on the fence up until now but you can thank yourself for my vote, for the motion, being emailed in now. You're posts are arrogant and one-eyed.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

You're posts are arrogant and one-eyed.You are correct , I (and a few others) have been trying to warn you to for weeks that you risk treading on your you know whats and end up with nothing for BPP. You may soon very well have a choice of a COS 08 style contract of no BPP until 65+ or continue on your current COS. You can huff and puff all you like but at the end of the day that will be your choice and the company know the probable numbers that will roll over to COS 09.

If trying to point out to the industrially naive bullies that alienating sections of your own membership using the pathetic war cry of democracy is arrogant and one eyed, then yes I am guilty. Is it one eyed to acknowledge RA65 is coming sooner or later, as unpleasant as it may be some for the short term it is going to happen one day.

Is it arrogant to point out to you that there are many more issues worth fighting for to protect your contract than the relatively measly dollars involved in the appeal. Is it one eyed to try and get it thru some of your heads that a unified union is the best way to solve the plethora of shortcoming in your contracts such as the "junior freighter" failed concept. Is it one eyed to point out to you that you are about to have no rostering practises for 2010.

Or are some of you blokes so dumb that you want to go to war over 35k GBP and risk splitting the union and giving the company everything it wants as easy as taking candy from a baby.

[Liam Gallagher]

"You may soon very well have a choice of a COS 08 style contract of no BPP until 65+ or continue on your current COS"

If Charlie's Appeal is successful the consequence for the UK base, at least, will be exactly that... COS08 (RA65-no BPP)

"Is it one eyed to acknowledge RA65 is coming sooner or later, as unpleasant as it may be some for the short term it is going to happen one day"

It's here already, and has been for a number of years; it's just that the more senior would prefer it on more lucrative terms. That said the terms seemed to "acceptable" enough; because "enough" are accepting it.

"protect your contract"

Charlie's Appeal is aimed at changing the contract; by not funding members are saying they don't want the Contract changed; they see themselves as the protectors.

"plethora of shortcoming in your contracts such as the "junior freighter" failed concept."

Not that this has anything to do with funding, but the Junior Fleet concept was part of an AOA negotiated deal... a phrase involving "horse" and "bolted" springs to mind. Equally, words such as renege and fickle and indecisive seem appropriate.

Cyril, Cronus may be onto something here. Are you sure your posts are really supporting the idea of funding?

[Kitsune]

At least we don't have to put up with CJG bleating and whining any more..:rolleyes::cool::rolleyes:

[BusyB]

Just Deadduck:}

[fire wall]

Still born bird,
When and where was this statement made ....the AOA's proposal to print the names of all those who supported Stu's motion

[fire wall]

I'll ask the question again: when and where was the statement made by the AOA that they would publish names of those in favour of the motion put forward. I can say catagorically that I have never heard of such.

The request for the vote is as per the AOA constitution, a copy of which you would have access to IF you are a member. Nothing untoward in it. Written notice required for tally of ballots and to guard against irregularities-again nothing untoward.

Axe handles - what? You may wish to review my posts on the topic.

You come across a bit emotional. Are you sure you are in the right profession?

[BusyB]

Deadduck,

You must have stopped your medication. I really haven't read such ranting and ravings since Arthur Scargill was on TV.

If you were a member you would know what rubbish you are spouting and Stu certainly doesn't agree with what you are saying.

Time for you to grow up I think.:ok:

[Kitsune]

Errmmm, that would be the Arthur Scargill whose prophesies about the coal industry have been proved right in every regard? Or is it another one....:cool:

[daisy120]

Jeez guys, stand back from the coal face and take a look at the pit itself will you. Contract or no, A scales and the old farts, issues of BPP et al, its all pretty nebulous. Every other segment of industry has recognised that the mandatory retirement(sic) limit is 65 for males, at least in Europe or most of it. With the social criterias attached to the increasing 'older' population and the traces we leave in life as we get older, sometimes as a marque of flying with an expat airline, debt profiles change,(higher risk of divorce, medical expenses, school fees, business comittments etc) and with that comes a necessary requirement to work into an age era consistent with the rest of society. The call is out for retirement in many other sectors to lift to 70 as a peg to age longevity. By bringing 65 into the overall picture benefits everyone in the longterm...as a sub 40yo, much can change in the years leading towards the 55 mark and it is then that this whole issue of sensible retirement, without discrimination, will then make sense. The cauldron of young turks should seek the wisdom of elders!!

[BusyB]

That would be the Arthur scargill who fulfilled his own prophecies and secretly arranged to take a cut of any compensation claims for miners.:D

[daisy120]

The corruptive and stifling power of cynicism!....seems to be the way nowadays. Its no wonder we rarely get results. I guess that's why this thread has had the life its had!!

[sisyphos]

Daisy et al are right, RA 55 is just a thing of the past.

I am not 40 yet either (and in the right hand seat), but with the financial turmoil we have seen the last year, it is quite obvious that whatever retirement planning you might have, it all could end up in smoke..

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Poor stillalbotross is so angry he just keeps missing the point. Firstly it was not a vote that was occuring it was a PETITION to the AOA to overturn a descision the GC had made on members behalf. There was no conspiracy to to make it harder to achieve, after all a petition is something you sign and put your name to to force a course of action that you believe in. Are you suggesting that the names should have been kept a secret from the membership. In actual fact if you think there is a conspiracy maybe the names should be released just incase the devious AOA is manipulating the results and lying about the numbers. Certainly if the petition did get up I would have expected to see the names to ensure tranparancy.

At the end of the day it is of no consequence as a resounding 93% of the membership did not support the petition and of those that did, it is probable that the 60 or so on the By Pass Pay Gravy Train supported the motion in order to keep getting paid for a job they do not perform. something that has a very short life span left if you read between the lines in the Crews News. Those noisy minority that started the petition have probably highlighted the BPP shortcomings of which many members were oblivious to 6 weeks ago and it will be those very members that have probably started the wheels in motion to "uncomplicate" our contracts.

And as for Liam he seems to support the notion that the older you get the less pay you should get, something that is at the core of the age discrimination legislation that protects against that exact concept.

Daisy, your post is on the money!

[fire wall]

Still born bird,
Your mindless babble is just another example of how the recruitment department has failed in their psychological profiling.

[Kitsune]

Seems this thread has run its course, having descended into recrimination and personal attacks....:cool:

[SFGDOG]

Stillalbatross,

chill out dude. The reality is that Charlies appeal is a long shot and meanwhile the company is busily showing the old-timers the door. The only thing you should be annoyed about is that the AOA has decided to donate some of your dues to some lawyers already fat bank account. This wouldn't be the first and it won't be the last time they waste money so relax.

[Liam Gallagher]

"And as for Liam he seems to support the notion that the older you get the less pay you should get, something that is at the core of the age discrimination legislation that protects against that exact concept."

Not sure how you figure that... we'll have to wait and see if a UK Court agrees with your view about the application of the Law. Whilst it will be interesting to see the Company's response if the Appeal is successful, it will be equally interesting to the response if the Appeal fails....

"93% of the membership did not support the petition"

I think 93% were apathetic..... you get the union you deserve...

[BusyB]

Liam,

How on earth can you call 93% apathetic for not supporting the petition. Lets face it, it was not a vote, it was a petition and if you didn't support it you didn't have to do anything. It shows that the majority did not agree with it and felt the GC were doing their job.

I've followed this thread with some interest and some of the claims (from both viewpoints) have been absurd but the rabid untruths and slanted claims made over the last few days really lose any right thinking persons respect or interest.:ok:

[jumpseat]

Daisy 11/02 1915.

That sums it up. Well said. :ok:

[Kitsune]

The fact of the matter is that the appeal is to decide whether a U.K. court has jurisdiction in the matter on a foreign tailed aircraft. If that is decided in the affirmative, (which IMHO is extremely unlikely due to the reciprocity in other jurisdictions), then there will be the case afterwards to decide if the practice is discriminatory. See the Crofts case for the time and money this will cost.:cool:

[Liam Gallagher]

First and foremost, I have no issue with how the Motion was dealt with: democracy in action.

"How on earth can you call 93% apathetic for not supporting the petition"

Easy... employ the same funky logic Cyril did when he said...

"...93% of the membership did not support the petition.."

I recall that in Sep 07 the GC turned down an AOA negotiated deal that included what Charlie is seeking. In that failed deal was what we now call COS08 and a 10% "staged" payrise. The seemingly unpalatable COS08 has been "accepted" by the members, a 10% payrise has been replaced by a 0-3% payrise (the rest of the company got 5%) and all this time the majority of the members have (secretly) believed "RA65-no BPP" was the way forward.

Clearly, some very confused thinking by the membership.....

[kahuna]

It's interesting that we had a vote on financial support for a fellow member who was denied loss of license insurance, but no vote was required in this case.
At the end of the day it's the members funds and they should have some say as to were they are directed.

[Liam Gallagher]

And as if by magic... Kahuna provides an example of that "confused thinking"

Out of curiousity Kahuna; did you put your name on the petition for a vote?

[jetset]

Would the same logic suggest that given the over 55's have accepted a pay cut to freighter scales without an appeal until now that they all accept it?

I didn't contact the AOA but have heard reasoned argument that has led me to believe that I would be unlikely to support a vote to finance the court action.

Yes, I am part of the apathetic 93% but i can live with it!

[Kitsune]

Equality and Diversity: Age Discrimination in Employment and Vocational Training - BERR (http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/discrimination/age-discrimination/index.html)

[rhoshamboe]

Just to clarify the RA 65 proponents position. Are you guys for 65 but WITH compensation for guys who are now having progression pushed back by 5-10 years or are you in the "I'm alright Jack, bugger the rest of you" frame of mind? Why would any pilot want a deal that doesn't include compensation for those it negatively affects? Does sinking the boot in make getting what you want so much sweeter? I would suggest that most younger guys would happily accept RA65 if they were looked after as well.

And as for BPP there are probably quite a few blokes out there that take exception to you saying they shouldn't be getting paid like you if they're not sitting in the left seat. A lot of them are pissed off they aren't getting the chance.

Rant over.

[daisy120]

Rhoshamboe...good one!
Goalposts are always changing and sadly, like it or not, part of the intrinsic mechanism of the modern airline is all about adaptation. I know this sounds like a management tow but its just the way it is now to effect survival in an era of deep depression. Its hard enuff when things are going well...and yes, we still get shafted, (opportunism of divisive labour groups comes to mind which paradoxically, mirrors the debacle that is the AOA) but the spin has always been a cycle between serendipity and hardship. The mid 80's saw rapid commands after a long period of command famine,(Last Officer Gosper?), to 4 year S/O sojourns and now even longer periods in the cruise seat before F/O upgrade. Retirement change, like global warming is an inevitable feature of natural shift and we just have to deal with it as best we can. Mitigation measures may work well with the BA's and Qantas's of the world but Cx has always had its unique and intransigent way of managing change and in the end, no amount of argument and debate within the pilot group will alter this.
Strangely, it seems in all of this, no mention is really made of the business of seniority. The "has beens" are chastised, often ridiculed for occupying the LHS and little truck is given to experience. No other industry I know of begins to either reverse a salary scale alongside longevity in career or openly castigates its senior mentors. The periodic time scale of F/O, S/O to command has always been a fickle model but like the cycles of recruitment, it is driven by profit and the engine of change. We interfere at our peril.

[BusyB]

Liam,

I have to say the hypocrisy on this thread has no bounds.

"I recall that in Sep 07 the GC turned down an AOA negotiated deal that included what Charlie is seeking. "

The GC did not turn it down. The GC did not feel they could recommend it to the membership but were quite happy to put it to a membership vote. CX then withdrew it so the AOA membership would not have the opportunity to vote on it.

On an item like the CM case the GC felt confident in supporting it after much discussion and have been criticised on this thread for that. Now you are also criticising the GC for wanting to put a major item to the membership.:confused::confused::confused::ugh:

[BusyB]

Actually Deadduck a lot more money goes in the top and is used for all. With higher subs and lesser insurance premiums those at the top are putting more in than the subsidized joiners at the bottom.

As for your assertions that the AOA only represents 60% of its members you can put them with the rest of your rantings. I'm sure the monkey can remember where:ok:

[Liam Gallagher]

Clearly, we have differing views on history. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.

Even taking your spun view of the events of 07, being... "The GC did not feel they could recommend it to the membership ..." For the purposes of Pprune I am still happy to characterize that as "turned down".... what would you call it... "accepted"?

You miss the point, I am not criticizing the GC on whether they should go to the membership on this issue or that; I crititize the membership. I believe the projected results of CM's Appeal do not sit well with what I believe to be the current membership's views on RA. I base that view on a number of historical issues; the rejection, or if that's too strong for you, the "non-recommendation" of the 07 deal is but one. The AOA's survey and the President's subsequent utube video would be another. However, if the membership have silently changed their views or can't be bothered to support the Petition... whose fault is that... certainly not the GC's!

NC came on here and wrote a post which I think dealt with the issue of seeking the views of the membership. The AOA's rules deal with this issue of potential differences between the GC and members. The Petition failed to gain the necessary support; the GC is more than mandated to proceed; the system worked... big tick... move on...

Whilst I may harbour concerns about the Appeal, I have never been critical of how the GC have handled this matter. My views have been consistent...

[BusyB]

"what would you call it... "accepted"?"

Withdrawn by CX.

My apologies for interpreting that as a criticism.:ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

One day, everyone on this thread will be 55+...

...One wonders if they will see things differently at that time?

[Apple Tree Yard]

...of course they will, and that is why their protestations of the moment are so hypocritical. All the FO/SO's are against 65...until THEY make Captain, then.....they're all for it. The argument is pointless based on this irrefutable logic. :ok:

ps. new contracts go to the printers on Friday....

[boxjockey]

Some have the financial agility to retire comfortably at 55. It's all about the life you lead and the decisions you make. Don't cry to me about the financial crisis. If you were properly positioned heading into a 55 retirement, then you wouldn't have gotten cleaned out by the current downfall. My brother is 38 and could retire tomorrow. It's all about the decisions we make. This thread needs to die now.

box

[8888]

One day, everyone on this thread will be 55+...

Negative! For the significant majority who signed up to CX knowing that 55 was the end of the road, a time line to command could be mapped out reasonably accurately hence an exit plan be instigated based on future earnings potential. That exit, in many cases, most certainly did not involve still being here at 55. This is the point that frustrates so many. The goal posts have been moved.

[boxjockey]

tsimbeit,

Are you going to post that on EVERY thread in here? It is a great missive, but really? :)

box

[iceman50]

Negative! For the significant majority who signed up to CX knowing that 55 was the end of the road, a time line to command could be mapped out reasonably accurately hence an exit plan be instigated based on future earnings potential. That exit, in many cases, most certainly did not involve still being here at 55. This is the point that frustrates so many. The goal posts have been moved.

Guess who moved the goalposts - the Company!

Which is the major point some of you children do not seem to understand. Age 65 will allow some of us to recoup what we have lost and before you all start screaming "A scale fatcat", I'm B scale! You are all whining that you don't want your contracts affected well join the club boys and girls.

Some have the financial agility to retire comfortably at 55. It's all about the life you lead and the decisions you make. Don't cry to me about the financial crisis. If you were properly positioned heading into a 55 retirement, then you wouldn't have gotten cleaned out by the current downfall. My brother is 38 and could retire tomorrow. It's all about the decisions we make. This thread needs to die now. Is he one of the Banker W***ers that created this great mess we are in now then? He certainly cannot be a pilot!

[Liam Gallagher]

Either you put your name on the Petition or you didn't.

If you are in the first category, you can express some disappointment with the decision to fund the Appeal. However, when expressing that disappontment it must be tempered by the fact "due process" occurred and not even 1:10 of your fellow members agreed, alternatively, could be @rsed, to sign. Whilst the GC didn't need a mandate from the membership to fund the Appeal, the Petition's failure empowers them even further. It is, therefore, wholly inappropriate to "slag-off" the GC for continuing to fund the Appeal.

If you are in the second category and didn't sign, I suggest you locate your "neck" switch and select "wind-in".

As an aside, should the rumours be true and a Contract is stuffed in my mailbox formalizing 55+ dropping onto B and C scale and the removal of BPP for freighter capts over 55, or the removal of BPP in toto, I shall be very interested to hear of Charlie's response. Should Charlie wish to continue his Appeal on the basis of the pay cut, despite being a "funding skeptic", I might just utter under my breath.... "go get the funking barstewards Charlie:8"

[iceman50]

Stillalbatross

Your comments straight back at you, because I was one of the FO's affected in the late 90's. So now you and the rest want to shaft me again using the "it's in the contract" argument, so that you can spend 20+ years as a Captain, when the retirement age does go to 65. Who will be the "fatcat's" then? Having had mortgages paid for by Cathay and still no doubt whining.

By the way, does BYPASS not mean that you have been bypassed. You have not been bypassed by an extendee, you are only "bypassed" if someone junior to you has been promoted out of seniority ahead of you!

[Liam Gallagher]

Please don't confuse this post as defending Albatross's views.

Point taken on the use of the "By Pass" phrase. However, I imagine it used because in my version of the COS, the clause dealing with extendees is labelled "BYPASS PAY".

Your version of COS may well differ and all versions may be subject to change:rolleyes:

[raven11]

Iceman50

Very good points. Junior members should read your last posts and take stock.

Your clarification on Bypass is particularly noteworthy.

[BusyB]

If someone joins CX at the age of 25-30 as opposed to 35-40 they already have the opportunity to work many more years in a company with a relatively short time to command. In the past when people were required to have much higher experience levels they joined at 35-45 because of the higher salary. CX has cut that drastically and now some of these guys (with up to 14 years to command) find they need to work on.

"expense of every S/O and F/O who is currently in the company. They suffer the greatest loss"

A lot of SO's and FO's will earn less for a period but will still have far longer on a higher command pay than many of the extendees.

Having never been able to afford a Porsche 911 it is good to see a young Captain (up from SO) driving into the CX car park with another 20 years plus of command if he wants.:ok:

[100% Ng]

Fair deal for everybody. NO GROUP SHOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP ANYTHING. How do we achieve that?. Junior crew can't be expected to disadvantaged and likewise the more senior crew. There has to be a happy median.

Any ideas
eg Increased graduated pay scales for FO's after a certain years of service.

Nothing really makes up for a delayed command, but if its going to happen we need some compensation if BPP is scraped.

[Max Reheat]

OK still-born-albatross...

You've driven me to it....

"I want to work to 65, I know it's going to shaft you but at this stage in life I really don't f*cking care.................................."

From the mindless ramblings of acerbic hatred that you direct towards your colleagues, you are clearly still reasonably young, in your early 30s at the most I would say; however, you have the intellect of a teenager.

A lot has changed in the world and indeed this company over the last 20 years.
Since the heyday of the late 80s we have seen
1. The introduction of the B (and subsequent) scales.
2. The introduction of ASL.
3. The slashing of A scale salaries in 1999.
4. The disaster of July 2001.
5. SARS
6. The current economic mess.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone one of us can have organised his retirement provisions to cater for where we find ourselves now.
Everyone suffered as a result of the ASL shambles, commands slipped almost overnight from 5 years to 10 years. Guys grumbled but really we just got on with life, with an expectation that retirement would begin at 55 with much less gold in the pot than previously expected, or hoped for.

The opportunity to retire at 65 is becoming the world-wide norm. It happened recently at British Airways and yes command time there has slipped. These things happen, it IS going to happen here, one day.... maybe sooner, maybe later than we all think. But yes, it is going to happen. I will pity those of you who joined and whose command has now slipped to perhaps the age of 40. Most of us here who have been lucky enough to get a command were in our 40's when the day came, why should you be any different.

I'm afraid that it is the narrow, short sightedness of the likes of you that have made my mind up.

"I really don't care, get some time in!"

[SFGDOG]

Max Reheat.

Bravo. Great to see someone call a spade a spade. Especially seeing as how you were brave enough to reveal your identity by telling us which flight you were about to operate on another thread. Another hint; when you are on pprune, your handle has a green button next to it. This is a great tool for name elimination.

Either you are very clever (the flight thing was a cunning ploy), very brave or very dumb. Why don't you now just change your pprune handle to your real name? That way all your FO's can be forewarned of your great talent for CRM.:}

You sound extremely confident that RA65 is coming soon. Do you know something we don't? There must be something in a new management rule book on downsizing for recessions that says "keep your most expensive employees at the expense of your cheaper employee's even if you have a legitimate way of seeing them off. This is the secret to cost cutting". Yeah right. Good luck with that.:D

[Max Reheat]

SFGDOG,

I'm not afraid of people knowing my identity... really.

On the expense of individuals within a workforce. Don't look at the expense, look at the value.

There are some who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

We have too many of those posting on this site.

[Apple Tree Yard]

SFGDOG, you sound like the teenager you probably are. 'Oohhh, I 'might' know who you are....??? pathetic. 65 is about to be the done deal boy. As for 'keeping your most expensive employees'....they won't really be all that expensive at that point will they? Regardless of the facts (yea, I know, inconvenient aren't they) the issue of age discrimination is basically forcing the issue on the company. The fact that you can't see it coming is the same problem the dinosaurs had millions of years ago (nice pun don't you think?).

[SFGDOG]

ATY,

yeah, done deal. Why don't you go and tell NR that? Or better still, tell the couple of very senior trainers who were just told by RH and NR, no extensions on anything. Nada. Not even on the freighter. I guess NR must be keeping his cunning plan carefully hidden because these guys were given no comfort whatsoever. Perhaps if you keep repeating it long enough it will eventually happen.

By the way. I do agree with you, RA65 will happen one day. But only when it suits management. Even if CM's appeal is successful, there is still a long road from that to adoption of RA65 across the company. Legal processes are anything but speedy and at the moment there is just no benefit in it for CX (yes I think they will survive without all that experience and Max reheats CRM). They will therefore take their time with this until their hand is forced or they see some financial or operational imperitive for the company. It's just business. End of story.

[Liam Gallagher]

I sense you would welcome a shift to RA65; and if that is at the expense of BPP and not a slip, but a massive shift, in Command times, then, in your mind: so be it. With the amount of litigation, particularly the BPP for FO's resultant of the +55 on the freighter, clearly something is going to give.

Obviously, this will be a bitter, if not unpalatable pill for Junior Crew. However, perhaps with some justication, you say this pill must be swallowed because; "the issue of age discrimination is basically forcing the issue on the company."

However, surely the company is going to continue to cut your pay on your 55th birthday and most probably no longer contribute to your pension scheme, limit your health care and remove your loss of licence benefits. Are you not being somewhat disingenuous to trumpet any formalization of the current scheme (without BPP) as a triumph over discrimination?

There may well be a forced change to our COS, but please, don't try and tell us this some good over evil thing..... it is merely another stunt by the company to enhance the bottom line by avoiding/eliminating BPP and getting an A-Scaler to work for B or C Scale lite.

[Apple Tree Yard]

You say the contracts will be 'forced'. Wrong. CX will give you all a 'voluntary' choice to choose the new contract, or stay on your old contract, WITH bpp. Of course, you will only be able to work to 55...but of course you'll have no problem with that...as you seem to think it should suite the rest of us just fine....!

[SFGDOG]

ATY,

you seem to know how this is going to play out??? I hope you are correct in that it will be voluntary. Whilst I can't speak for all FO's or SO's, my prediction is that most that are not within spitting distance of command or close to being 55 will opt to stay with BPP. The phrase "bird in the hand" springs to mind. That then brings me back to my former point, why would the company do something like this unless it is forced (and it seems a long way from that at this time)? The quickest way to stop paying BPP in the current environment is to get rid of the extendees when their contracts expire. This kills two birds with one stone (those birds again). This helps reduce the overmanning, assuming the company is being truthful about being overmanned, and saves BPP.

I think we are more likely to see VSS offered in some new form than RA65 at the moment. Assuming that there is something to this GFC thing and airlines going bust all over the place and cutting capacity. But what would us pathetic teenagers know about those things anyway.:ok:

[Zeke]

"the issue of age discrimination is basically forcing the issue on the company."

Which company do the cabin crew work for ?

The cabin crew retirement age was only increased to 45 last year. They also have bases outside Hong Kong, even in places that have age discrimination laws. Why do some pilots think they will be granted 65 ?

More than one group of employees have a mandatory retirement age.

[Max Reheat]

SFGDOG,

I am intrigued.... what has expressing an opinion on here got to do with CRM?

For your consideration...

If the RA65 is offered as ATY suggests, then I would suspect that most Captains would accept, perhaps after an attempted intervention by the AOA. As a consequence of that, your command would certainly be delayed for an in-quantifiable period. Explain to me, then, why on earth would a current FO choose to stay with the current contract (albeit on BPP) rather than have the opportunity of another 10 yrs as a Captain beyond the age of 55.

Don't forget either, that once you reach adulthood, your aspirations will change. Regardless of how clever you have been in creating a pot of gold, every day you are able not to dip into it will be a day that the pot can grow even larger. You are either deluded or a liar to suggest that you will retire at 55. And once at that ripe 'old' age when given the choice of remaining at CX or leaving and starting again with Korean or China Airlines etc then you would magnanimously choose the latter, merely to enhance the careers of a group of disenchanted junior employees whom you have never met and who incessantly post their hated on sites such as this.

You are allowing the red that is clouding your vision to cloud your judgement also.

[SFGDOG]

Max Reheat,

First, CRM. How does the attitude "screw you as long as I am all right jack" belong to anybody in command of an airline crew?

Secondly, it's quite simple really. Why would I choose my lucrative RA65 when I would spend the first 3+ years of that working just to compensate for my lost income due to the delay to command? I would rather take "x" number of years BPP and leave early. Working for free just doesn't sit right with me. Also, this would give the added satisfaction of sticking it to the company for extending the time to command.

So tell me, was it ok for those before you to have retired at 55 so that you could advance or were you campaigning for them at that time begging the company to retain their experience? Yeah I thought so.

Good luck to you if you were fortunate enough to join on A scales, if you had less than 10 years to command because those before you left at 55. But understand this. Many junior officers is this company are doing it tough financially. Especially if they have a family. Promotion is the only way out of that situation. Never mind retirement, the priority is to survive each month. I know one SO who joined from the RAAF who was talking of leaving as he had to use his savings from the RAAF just to survive each month. Most guys coming up for retirement have more than any of the current FO's or SO's will ever hope to have so count your blessings and have the retirement you can afford.

[Liam Gallagher]

What you predict would be in-line with the failed/rejected (for BusyB-withdrawn) deal of Aug 07.

Surely the best option for junior crew would be to stay on the original deal, take the BPP and then as they approach 55 discover that they have been discriminated against and approach the AOA to fund a lawsuit to prevent them being forcably retired as detailed in their contract... sound vaguely familar.:}

Should the majority of the Junior Crew elect to do that; and the AOA may advise them to do so, the problem then becomes the extendees remain an expensive option for the company (particularly if the floodgates open on BPP for Freighter extendees). Having the extendees on effectively 10 year contracts, presumably with no unpaid leave provisions, that will be unattractive to the company if they get no savings on BPP.

As for MaxReheat's question... "Explain to me, then, why on earth would a current FO choose to stay with the current contract (albeit on BPP) rather than have the opportunity of another 10 yrs as a Captain beyond the age of 55"

You need to read Numero Cruncho's post of some months back regarding the financial punishment for Junior Crew; whilst your career earnings rise by a small percentage... you have to work a lot of extra years. Also, what's to say by the time I get to 55 and get those "extra 10 years of Capts pay"; my pay wont be slashed to C Scale. Perhaps it is better to get command as fast as you can before the world changes again?

[jetset]

Thanks Liam

My thoughts exactly. As much as I hate people being discriminated against, it is worse still for me to earn a dollar less ;)

As an aside, after retiring at 55 (with bypass pay( I can always keep flying somewhere else.

I see no benefit at this time for me in RA65 at this time and please don't quote me in ten years time as my view may change :E

[Max Reheat]

Stillalbatross,

You make some valid points.

However, if you read my posts carefully I have not mentioned MY pension fund; if you did see it your eyes would water!!! But that's my problem, not yours.

The whole thrust here is that you, SFGDOG and others spoil your arguments with such vitriol that they lose any impact. Even Cyril has stopped posting on this thread, clearly he felt he was banging his head against a brick wall.

Just for one moment disregard the financial aspect of people extending beyond 55 and consider that most are just not ready to give up a job they love. There are even still some of us left who still love flying for this company and give it 100%, 100% of the time.

SFGDOG...
It's ever so easy to post here when you are hiding behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity. Some have declared their hand, why don't you do the same, it may add some impact to your argument. If you are unwilling to do so, then maybe you should nip to the pharmacy and buy some testosterone tablets!!!

In the meantime..... cope with it!

[SFGDOG]

Max Rehash,

some of us are not so foolish as to announce our identity on a public internet forum. Especially not to win a silly argument on the internet if this is indeed possible. If you feel so strongly about using names, please feel free to post from now on under your real name. You may as well.

Incidentally, RA 65 is unlikely to have little or no impact on me personally, even if it was introduced tomorrow. I just can't COPE with the complete lack of understanding or empathy on how RA65 will effect junior crew. Trying to sell it as a win-win is just a complete load of (you know what). In my previous career, my colleagues and I took great pride in fostering the new generation and trying to leave the organisation a better place than we found it. Compare that to some of the senior members in this company who could care less about those that follow them while they are busy trying to kick the ladder away behind them. My only comfort is that the business situation at the moment at least favours the FO's and SO's interests and may save them from some of their senior brethren. Why does it seem that is it always fellow pilots who are often responsible for inflicting the worst career damage on their fellow pilots?

As I have said previously, the only guys that I have real sympathy for are the first of the B scalers approaching 55. They do have a better argument to keep working.

[Arfur Dent]

SFGDOG
Where did your info regarding no further extensions to anyone on anything come from - and when please?

[Kitsune]

Max Reheat, so you don't have any answer to SFDOG's posting and fall back on insults just like....:cool:

[SFGDOG]

Jagman,

won't use names on this forum but it was in the within the last month and the initials were PL and MD from the Airbus fleet. Quickest way to confirm it yourself unless you know who I am referring to is to call RH. From what I hear, there may be a very limited requirement for extensions on one fleet for a few particular people but even that may be off the agenda now. CX is in cost cutting and cash conserving mode now so the game has changed. I actually have no gripe with the extendee's as at least there is compensation in the form of BPP to those effected as per the COS.

[Arfur Dent]

Think I may know those initials SFG but also I hear on the drums that some people are being extended - even on the dead (or dying) Classic for heavens sake! What will CX do with them?
Recently too and I don't mean December. What's all that about? Do you think we will get a new contract? I do........

[Apple Tree Yard]

Instead of the continual slagging off of the senior pilots in the airline, why doesn't everyone encourage the AOA to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the company, settling all the issues that are presently giving us all heartburn. Whether it's this year, next, or in 5 years time, the company will officially have 65 in the near term. The fact that they have many pilots already on age 65 contracts puts them at risk legally for charges of discrimination. No airline willingly gets rid of it's experience (read: safety). CX is now about the only airline without a formal age 65 retirement. What do you think is the most likely outcome? A continuation of an increasingly indefensible position, or acceptance and implementation of the industry norm. hmmm, don't think i'd bet my bpp on the former....

[Max Reheat]

Kitsune,

Insults like........ what?

I haven't insulted anyone. Suggesting a purchase of testosterone is hardly an insult.

There have been plenty of insults flung at the senior officers from the junior pilots on this thread but I guess that passed you by.

In the meantime ATY has hit the nail on the head... again. Though I fear that the AOA is attempting to do just that and are being 'stone-walled' as usual.

[Liam Gallagher]

"...risk legally for charges of discrimination.."

err...so the pay cut at 55 isn't discriminatory then?

If you have watched the AOA's video on RA65 you will be able to see this is a matter concerning the AOA. The AOA's position obviously differs with the status quo, which is broadly the company's position. It is not a matter for the pilot's to agree a deal amongst themselves. I sense the only concession the company is prepared to make is "RA65-no BPP"... effectively COS08...

Here's an alternative suggestion. RA65 for all, pay for over 55's pitched at a level to ensure a fair and transparent BPP compensation package for Junior Crew and a bit of savings for the company and "The Management's Bonus". I am guessing that pay will be between B and C scale with no bolt-ons. I'll leave you to fight over whether it's the same pay for Freighter or Pax... I don't care...

This achieves your aim of non-discrimination and eases your safety concern over experience retention. Max Reheat gets to do the job he loves.

There you go... on one hand everyone's got what they want and on the other hand everyone's mildly p!ssed off... hallmarks of a good deal...

So how about it ATY....?

[Dragon69]

There are even still some of us left who still love flying for this company and give it 100%, 100% of the time.



After 15+ years what's there to love about sitting in an aluminium tube for 15 hours or doing a Manila split duty. Some of you seriously need a hobby or a life outside Cathay!


No airline willingly gets rid of it's experience (read: safety).


Are you that naive! From the companies perspective, once you make Captain, you've reached a standard and they could care less about years of experience. Proof is that they will happily send a new Captain to JFK, with forecasted snow storm, and a 54 year old Captain to do a Taipei turn.

In the past Captains were being extended because it was a cheap and quick solution to their crewing levels, No training, B scale package, etc. With the new BOP, if indeed it is true that we will be over crewed, where is the advantage of keeping a Captain beyond 55????

[Humber10]

Could the CNs in this thread give us the time it took to command in this company? I would like to compare what it has taken to achieve command over the last 10-15 years....

Also if there's any F/Os that were previously S/Os; how long were you an S/O for.

cheers

[BusyB]

14+ years:ooh:

[turnandburn]

It can take longer for various reasons medical, cad can suspend your entitlement for command for medical reasons ( though you still fly as F/O), waiting for a base, waiting to use a joker

[Loopdeloop]

Methinks BusyB is a special case. There are very few captains who, if they had progressed normally, would have done more than 10.5 years in the right seat. Many did 2-3 years and I think Last Officer Gosper only did 11 but don't take that as gospel, I wasn't here then!!
The current ttc is 9 years 1 month and 21 days but with the ASL bulge, anyone joining after 1st Jan 00 is looking at 10.5 years........hopefully!!

[raven11]

There is a distinction younger pilots need to understand when making these comparisons.

For pilots who joined in the earlier nineties, ten or eleven years to command was in the right seat. Second Officers joining the Company need to count right seat time to command, and not second officer time, to make an apples to apples comparison.

[Blutack]

Can't believe the AoA is going to fund a case which is directly outside of their Cos.....Why did you sign RA55 all those years ago then.......why do all the hard working paying members have to pay for a court case which is going for something that is outside of these peoples Cos?

All this and its ultimately going to disadvantage junior officers!:mad:

[Loopdeloop]

Raven. Unfortunately an "apples to apples" comparison isn't possible here. Firstly, many S/O's joined as ex Ryanair (or any other airline) skippers or with a whole load of experience in the military, just as new joiner F/Os have been doing for Cathay's entire history. Secondly, we are employing S/Os and F/Os concurrently so for every S/O who has only to count right seat time there is an F/O who joined on the same day who has to count all of his time in the company.
For these reasons, time in the company is probably the best way to count your time.

[Blutack]

The main issue here is an association funding something with the use of members funds which is not in their CoS!
If you sign up for something then later on decide its not what you want....then fund it yourself don't use the resources of others....especially those that will be disadvantaged.

[Liam Gallagher]

To save you looking at the reply to Albatross...

"Can't believe the AoA is going to fund a case"

You are one of two people. If you put your name on the Petition, you can express disappointment, however temper your views because 90% of your fellow members disagreed/couldn't be @rsed.

If you didn't put your name on the Petition, locate your "neck" switch and select the "wind-in" position....

[raven11]

Loopdeloop

Save that arguement for the young ladies.

I've flown with hundreds of S/O's. For everyone who is as experienced as you describe there are three who are not, and many with 300 hours total time.

Time to command comparisons with those who joined as FO's can only be measured by time in the seat as FO's.

Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

[Arfur Dent]

Blutak
The world does not stand still. What you sign now will not be cast in concrete for ever more and never changed. Stop whining. The AOA membership disagrees with you so leave it and save your subs if you like. This subject is closed - as it should be.
Oh and get some time in.............:mad:!

[Loopdeloop]

I'm not sure I understand your banter Raven but at least you seem to agree that an "apples to apples" comparison isn't possible, as over half the people who join the company do so directly in the right seat or have the relevant experience to do so.
The old system whereby S/Os didn't get a seniority number until they upgraded made ttc easier to quantify but right now it's tricky. In fact, all of the straight through captain upgrades in the last few months and for the next 12 months will have joined as an F/O. Unless you've a better suggestion, I'll use time in the company as the best guide to ttc.

[turnandburn]

Incorrect several who joined as S/O doing freighter commands out of seniority order.

[JoeShmoe]

"who joined as S/O doing freighter commands out of seniority order"

How can it be out of seniority order when ANYBODY with a seniority number in the company can bid for a course? (Not excusing/including the most recent DEC debacle as people who had a valid seniority number).

Don't blame the guys for bidding on a course within a system that was validated and approved by all of us in 2000.

If you're going to blame anybody for a 2 fleet system blame the company. DO NOT forget who the enemy is!!!

[raven11]

Loop

I can't believe we're having this debate. You're letting emotion cloud your judgement.

Read carefully... An apples to apples comparison IS Possible. It's when you compare the time in the right seat.

Please don't say that your time as an S/O compares in any way possible with someone's time as a F/O. It doesn't matter if you had previous time at Ryanair, were a cadet, a 1000 hour GA instructor, or wherever.

When you've done ten years as an F/O, at Cathay, then you can compare yourself with someone else who's done 10 years as an F/O.

Don't take my word for it... Ask the CAD!

As I said (I mean "bantered") in my last post, you are only fooling yourself
making any other comparison.

[Blutack]

Liam Gallagher

Maybe I am neither of the people you have outlined.

Instead: People join an association for protection, protection of their CoS….not to use the association to gain things that are not in their CoS, at the expense of others.

Maybe you are one of those guys getting close to 55 and have not planned your retirement? So locate your “neck” and select “retirement” position…:)

[Blutack]

Jagman1

“What you sign now will not be cast in concrete for ever more and never changed.”

Are you serious? YES it is set in concrete that’s why you sign a contract silly…….:ugh: Stop wasting the time and resources of the Association trying for something outside your CoS and instead use their resources in ensuring ALL of our CoS are met.

[turnandburn]

I was just stating a fact that I know of at least 5 new freighter command trainees and new captains joined as SO so not all just direct entry FO.

[raven11]

Albatros

What?!? What the heck does housing allowance have to do with time to command?

You say that most of you could have flown 737's... Then aren't you making my experience point for me?

If you and your colleagues are going to constantly compare time to command with those of us who joined in the eighties or nineties, you must compare apples to apples. Those who joined back then as F/Os were hired, trained, and tested as F/Os. Those who joined as S/Os were hired trained and tested as S/Os.

You cannot seriously call their experience at Cathay similar in any way.

If you're going to compare, then make an accurate comparison.

[Dragon69]

Those who joined back then as F/Os were hired, trained, and tested as F/Os.


You mean like all those ex-military boys hired in the 80-90s that never saw the inside of a wide body prior to Cathay:confused::confused::\:\

[raven11]

Dragon69

Yeah...those are the ones...the ones that don't consider 45 degrees of bank a steep turn? The ones that don't seem to have the trouble upgrading to Captain....Hmmmmm, I wonder why?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Are you serious? YES it is set in concrete that’s why you sign a contract silly…….:ugh:You just have not been in CX long enough, The contract I signed, when recruited had 70 hours and 8 weeks leave...........but I just could not resist the SIGN OR BE FIRED OFFER IN 99 .....you know the one that I happily signed that had 55 retirement in it.

I get the feeling some of you might just be about to experience the dilemma that seems to come around every few years.

Stop wasting the time and resources of the Association You mean like time wasting petitions by <7% of the membership

[Dragon69]

Yeah...those are the ones...the ones that don't consider 45 degrees of bank a steep turn? The ones that don't seem to have the trouble upgrading to Captain....Hmmmmm, I wonder why?


Stop shoveling sh/t Raven, you really are disillusioned! Go talk to the training department and ask them how many of those boys had trouble upgrading, you would be enlightened.

[Liam Gallagher]

"Maybe I am neither of the people you have outlined"

errr... no... you either signed the Petition or you did not; can't be half pregnant here. Equally, you have either read (and understood) this entire thread or you have not. You are clearly in the latter camp.... otherwise you would not have written...

"Maybe you are one of those guys getting close to 55 and have not planned your retirement"

Further....

"YES it is set in concrete that’s why you sign a contract silly"

Even putting aside the excellent (hard earnt) advice that Cyril and Jagman have given you regarding CX's view of the "advisory" nature of contracts, Governments and Courts overturn private Contracts everyday. In fact some believe that is their role, and Charlie is asking a UK Court to do exactly that; indeed, it is his right to do so......

[raven11]

Dragon

Grow up! I refuse to reply to such a childish post.

Except to say your post embarresses us all. It says everything one needs to know about your background/experience.

You have neither.

[Dragon69]

Grow up! I refuse to reply to such a childish post.



You already did! idiot!

[Loopdeloop]

Raven, you seem to be stuck on transmit but I'll try it in bite sized pieces for you.

1. More than half of new joiners over the last 10 years joined as F/Os, whether it be on the freighter (pre 2008) or as unified DEFOs.
2. Cathay's F/O intake criteria have changed little over the last couple of decades.
3. Ttpc is now 9 years, 2 months and 23 days. One year from now it will be 10 years, 2 months and 23 days.
4. All straight through captain upgrades for the next year joined as an F/O.

For these reasons I use time in the company as ttpc (for clarification, note addition of the letter p!)

Please don't read any more into my posts than I've written. The question was asked about ttc a couple of days ago. You replied that S/Os need to subtract S/O time. I don't disagree, but how do they do this and is it relevant right now? Should they subtract 18 months, actual time to JFO upgrade, actual time to F/O upgrade or time to F/O BPP? It's a mess, and if you go down that route then you'll end up with an answer that nobody can get their head around.

I'm not qualified to answer the question posed, so perhaps you'd like to start the ball rolling?

[Arfur Dent]

Liam and Cyril.

Thank you guys.Throughout you've spoken a lot of sense. I think it's about time the moderator put this thread to bed.

The 'dissillusioned few' have had their chance and, thank goodness, have failed. They are, as we hoped, a tiny minority. I wish to fly until 65 and enjoy 20 years of retirement and it pretty much looks like I will (the 65 bit anyway).

The minority will rant and rave but will do little else. As someone who thoroughly enjoys my job, I will not be responding on this subject any further. May even extend beyond 65 if I feel like it too!!

Incoming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ok:

[Loopdeloop]

Well said Jagman. All that's left here seems to be either off topic or the repetition of views expressed weeks ago by people who can't be bothered to read back that far.

[Max Reheat]

Stillborn....

Of course, the whole thing is an evil scam perpetrated by people with more money than you could ever dream of possessing, just to screw you...... PERSONALLY.

Grow up,

and by the way...

Get some time in!!!!

[Apple Tree Yard]

Let's try and understand a simple concept (especially for people like stillalbatross). No one has the right to tell me when i'm 'over the hill', 'too old', 'past my prime'...etc, etc. CX has many pilots flying to 65. The debate is over..it's only the details that need working out. If you worked for ANY other airline, you would be working to a retirement age of 65. You are ALREADY doing so at CX....just need to formalise it for everyone. Get over it, it's done. :ok:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Do us all a favour Buddy..........Quit......you are such a dill you probably wouldn't make command anyway. I wouldn't let you ride a tricycle let alone a shiny big jet. No COS in CX has been set in stone, you are about to be educated in that fact. The world progresses and matures.........something I doubt you will.

[Nullaman]

>>No COS in CX has been set in stone, you are about to be educated in that fact. <<

A little close to the truth I suspect

[Max Reheat]

Oh Stillborn....

You couldn't be more wrong,but that would be par for your course, wouldn't it.

You give the impression that you believe the world owes you a living, putting you bang in the middle of the "I want it all and I want it now!" generation.

Just for one minute take yourself out of your little world of cosseted delusion and have a look around, times change so does commerce and so does the law. These things have to happen. It's called progress.

By the way, what will your total time to a CX command be since entering the world of professional aviation? For me it was 22 years.

What is your background. Does it involve putting yourself in harm's way, every day? Does it involve stretches of 4 months away from your family in places you'd really rather not be? Does it involve people who's sole intention is to ensure that you don't EVER make it back to see your loved ones?

Mmmmmm, I suspect not.

Why do you go out of your way to give the impression that this evil plot is designed around screwing you? There are many reason's why the older guys want to stay, amongst which are the need (or even desire) for more money and the unwillingness to give up a job they enjoy. But to suggest, as you did yesterday, that it is just to spite you is ridiculous in the extreme. Why don't you consider for just one minute those few who started out again later in life than is the norm. They possibly have children to support. But you are trying to belittle them into giving up a job that will pay for those young kids just so that you can have a shot at the LHS.

Your battle-cry is that you are being discriminated against. You are actually doing yourself no favours what-so-ever.

[Dragon69]

What is your background. Does it involve putting yourself in harm's way, every day? Does it involve stretches of 4 months away from your family in places you'd really rather not be? Does it involve people who's sole intention is to ensure that you don't EVER make it back to see your loved ones?



Yes Rambo it's called the Taipei split duties :}:}

[Max Reheat]

Dragon69

Sorry, you are going to have to try much, much harder than that!!!

[raven11]

MaxReheat, "I have the lead", let me have a go.

Dragon69

Is your vocabulary limited to profanity? I suggest for starters that you stop listening to rap.

Your posts remain childish and immature (off the Ridelin?). You too need to get some serious "time in"! Post on Facebook for a while.....give us a break.

I've been in this business for 35 years, both military and commercial background prior to Cathay, and will not be sworn at by a child.

Loopdeloop, excellent last post...I'll give your points some thought.

Max Reheat...excellent method of comparing apples to apples. Time to "widebody command". My total time to wide body commnand was 27 years.

Only a guess, mind you, but I bet that I've been flying almost as long as Dragon's been alive!

[BusyB]

29 commercial yrs to CX command:ok:

[Dragon69]

I've been in this business for 35 years, both military and commercial background prior to Cathay, and will not be sworn at by a child.



Yes and instead of bowing out gracefully and respectfully, you choose to stay around like bad headache that just doesn't go away.


Max Reheat...excellent method of comparing apples to apples. Time to "widebody command". My total time to wide body commnand was 27 years.


With logic like that you call my posts immature??? I wonder how on earth you passed your aptitude test. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Max Reheat]

Dragon 69,

Really.... give up. I'm sure you must have better things to do (though it would appear that I don't)!!!

You are not going to win an argument against the likes of your current adversaries. You can shout and stamp your feet all you want but it will do you no good.

By the way, we have all fronted up, how many years do you have in professional aviation? And I mean 'professional'?

I strongly suspect that Raven is not far off the mark!

[Dragon69]

So Rambo what daring and dangerous missions have you been on today. :yuk::yuk::yuk:

You are not going to win an argument against the likes of your current adversaries. You can shout and stamp your feet all you want but it will do you no good.

Yes because you and your buddies posts are full of logic, intellect and intelligence.....NOT!

This is a forum, you think I am going to believe any numbers that are thrown to manipulate and justify your argument, get real, would rather believe a used car salesman.

[Max Reheat]

Dragon 69

And that, young man, is exactly why it is going to take you a very long time to get a command in this company!

[raven11]

Dragon

Assuming you have at least mastered the three times table by now, do the math genius!! For those of us approaching 55, and assuming we started flying in our late teens or early twenties, that equates to 35 years of flying.

Your reluctance to tell us your experience reveals how wet behind the ears you really are and, once again, says all we need to know about you.

Aptitude Test? I got mine from men with names like Jones, Thompson, and Dybal. Who gave you yours?

Now go back to facebook. Come back when you get some real time in!

[Dragon69]

Raven

Your intellect closely matches that of the bird you represent.

FYI I am already captain no need to get some "time in".

What am I supposed to be awed by your 35 years of experience versus my 25. You don't show any respect toward your younger colleagues who have a genuine concern about potentially being stuck in the RHS for significantly longer than they were anticipating. Instead you criticize and belittle them by baffoon like logic and you expect respect in return. You've been riding the gravy train and are too greedy to let it go. So no I don't listen to rap and I don't even know what facebook is, what I do know though is how disappointing some of my colleagues have turned out to be.

[SFGDOG]

I see we have reached a new pathetic low on this thread.

How can anybody compete with the "mine is bigger than yours, so there" (I think that is the equivalent of who has the most hours in an aeroplane or time in CX argument). Some of you guys are sounding really desperate which is surprising since you keep stating that RA65 is all but done and dusted. If you are so confident, why are you bothering to go on about it on PPrune. Deep down I think you are very concerned that you will be shown the door at 55 which seems very likely at the moment. Bleating on about it here will have no impact on the decision which will be made by management for business reasons only. i.e if they are short of crew than you are looking good, if they are overmanned then not so good. Counting on the lawyers to save you is a weak hand.

And by the way, my experience is that those who bang on most about their time in the service are often those who are the most insecure about it. They tend to have little if any operational experience on the two way range and probably spent most of their time warming an office chair or showing the bograts how it's done in the training circuit. They are also the loudest spuikers in the bar. Meanwhile the SAS guy over in the corner with three tours under his belt sips his beer so quietly you wouldn't even know he was there let alone what he has done.

As someone else said, show some grace and dignity befitting your age and seniority.

[sisyphos]

I just don't get it..:confused:

If the company extends guys anyway ( they even offer classic cpts already(!) on extension a course on the 400 now!) , how on earth would an official RA65 change much regarding time to command ??

O.K., BBP is a factor, but isn't the security to have a job beyond 55 worth much much more? Are you guys aware how much money you will need in case you retire with 55 to live on comfortably for another 20 to possibly 40 years ??? If you have a younger wife/ kids to support, from what will they live after you made your final take off ? What if you or a family member gets ill/ you divorce/ you suffer from stock market decline/ real estate bubble/godknowswhat ? What if Canada or Britain decide to let people pay for health service at some point in the future? What about changes regarding capital gain tax ?

I have the strong suspicion that there is simply a lack of realistic judgement regarding the amount of money needed among those in favour of RA55 ( e.g. a million $ 20 years ago is now worth less than a third in todays money, and that excludes the astronomical rise in real estate in some areas of the world). What if we enter a phase of hyper inflation at some point in the future?

With the current regulation all those F/O 's suffering from the status quo ( high percentage of 55y old guys on individual extensions anyway) risk to get send home when THEY turn 55 with absolutely nothing!

[raven11]

Dragon

Your right about one thing, respect is a two way street.

You sir, need a lesson in balance. Do us all a favour and reread your posts, pay particular attention to your tone and use of insults and profanity, and then seriously ask yourself if your not being a tiny bit hypocritical lecturing anyone on respect. Or, am I being an idiotic buffoon, exhibiting birdbrain logic in just asking you to do this.

Kitsune

Why should I be allowed to extend my contract? Well, I suppose, for one, because it is in my contract...as long as BPP is payed; and because it's been going on for years; and, because I want to. As I said it IS in the contract! Whats more I, like most of us, enjoy what I do, am good at it, and am not ready to retire mentally, or financially. I have a family to feed and support. I've worked hard here, and in good faith. Is that greed?

No, I did not get my Command here in three years. Following the introduction of ASL, it took me 10 years as an F/O, and a total 27 years of flying. Does that make me a pig at the trough? I think not.

After all the changes, degradations, and cuts to my groups COS over the years, I for one would like an acknowledgment of that fact, instead of the vile (and yes Dragon, child-like) attacks I've read here. Apart from being paid as per the contract people signed on, many of the attackers on this thread have never felt a single cut or degradation in their COS.

Now I ask you both, why must you and others characterize my groups need to work as selfishness? Are our families any less deserving? If you both are who you say you are, many of the men you slag here probably trained you along the way. Is this how you show your gratitude...and respect?

Kitsune you accuse me of an agenda. Non other that to avoid that swinging lamp you want me to injure myself on, and engage in a civil debate.

I'll stop transmitting now, and listen for a while (unless my cage gets rattled).

[SFGDOG]

Raven,

I think most people have no problem with extendees as per the current contract. Good luck to them and the company if it's a win-win. I think though the problem some of us have is with those that advocate a change to our COS to RA-65 without the appropriate compensation for the junior crew effected. The snag is that in the current environment the company would appear to have no interest in any deal which costs them one cent. It will therefore be difficult then to overcome this until the economy picks back up and CX is yet again caught short of crew and the AOA has some negotiating leverage. I think it is just rotten luck if you are approaching 55 at this point in time or were hoping to have an extension renewed. But I also don't believe for a second that SO's and FO's (particularly those with a family) who are counting on that promotion just to escape the poverty trap should be the ones to make a sacrifice for that rotten luck. It's a myth to think that all these guy's are single and in there 20's. Many have joined in their 30's and some even in their early 40's, some after 15-20 years in the military, GA or airlines. Many would not have bothered if they were forewarned that it could take 15 to 20 years to command because RA-65 was about to be introduced. So it's a bit late to expect that they should voluntarily take such a huge knock on the chin without the appropriate compensation.

Sure, maybe it will be imposed sometime in the future but I can't see many wanting to sign away their COS earlier because of a "maybe". And if there is a sign or be fired contract offered then that will be a decision for each officer to make with their family. I for one decided long ago that I would take my chances and refuse if that ever happens and have planned accordingly. I like my job but it is just a job and I refuse to allow myself to be bullied. Period.

[Loopdeloop]

sisyphos - What you suggest sounds sensible but the following is the way most F/Os and S/Os look at it:

If the company stops extending then they will get a command sooner (better job), a choice of base sooner (better life) and proper Command salary as against BPP (more money).

Balanced against this is the possibility that they may not be able to stay with CX beyond 55.
Of course they may well get an extension themselves when they get to 55 or RA65 may be with us by then. They will also probably be able to find another job if it isn't, or they may wish to retire when they get there.

On balance, if you were an F/O or S/O in say your 30s, which would you pick right now?
I keep reading that the youngsters are short sighted for not wanting RA65 and it simply isn't true. Pilots are generally good at evaluating delayed reward and on balance, depending on your seniority, age and whether you prefer to be in Hkg or on a base, the scales tip in favour of RA55 right now for most junior crew.

The quandary for me is that I fly with a lot of great guys who are over or approaching 55 who I'd like to continue to work with, which is why I keep banging on about reaching a negotiated deal with the company on retirement age to replace the current crappy system we have whereby the company selects those it wishes to keep.

[sisyphos]

Loop:

I have little doubt that many F/O's opposing RA65 do indeed hope it will be introduced at a later stage when they are promoted already.
But firstly I think this is a bit sad, for what it's worth, but secondly and more important quite optimistic and in the end simply a risky gamble. The more COS 08 guys moving in, the harder it will be to get RA65! In a few years time, there will be a significant number of pilots within CX who will do anything to avoid RA65, since they got it already, see?

I have worked for quite a few airlines in my life, and I have almost never seen anybody retiring earlier than he had to.:hmm:

I also strongly oppose the general opinion that the company doesn't offer anything in return for RA65, it actually offers the opportunity to continue for 10 years on a high pay scale with a good seniority, possibly on a base with a decent roster. Even if you think the company should offer something on top, it just won't happen since every guy reaching 55 is happily accepting an extension anyway!

Just imagine working your final years struggling as an old fart for some contractor in Taipeh or Shenzen. There are not too many good jobs ( if any) around for 55 year old guys, you are usually not welcomed among the fellow crew members, most probably they do not speak your language anyway, no seniority,minimum off days,low pay,no or little housing, etc etc. Having said that, if CX is not offering any extensions than there is probably a reason for it, so you are looking at no income at all.

Again, with the company offering extensions anyway, there is no delay of command with RA65 !

There is nothing to win but a lot to loose if we don't move to RA65 now.

I honestly would be interested to see a financial plan from one of those opposing RA65. I am an F/O, 30 something, and I just do not understand how it should be possible to save enough in let's say 20 years of service to live afterwards for maybe 30 or 40 years ( that includes support time for wife and kids, I am not that optimistic:}).
Maybe somebody is willing to make it public here, how he plans to achieve that, with exact numbers/expected interest rates/inflation/tax etc. Could be interesting..

[mephisto88]

Sisyphos, the following is my goal.

My desirable asset base would be A$3.5m. House and car paid for (no plane, boat, ex-wife, horse or racing cars)

Assuming an average over a 10-20 year period of 6% growth. In the good times see the pot swell, and viccy verky for the bad times.

Will leave 2%(of the 6% growth) in the pot, and expect only a slow decline of asset base, but still have some to leave kids when I fall of my perch.

That leaves me with 4%, which if structured correctly would be tax-free of $140k/yr.

I think that would do me fine, especially as one can expect outgoings to decrease as one crumbles round the edges.

As for the 3.5m, well we can all dream can't we?

[sisyphos]

thanks mephisto for sharing.

my initial thought would be : are you aware that the 140k will be reduced by inflation ? In 30 years from now ( don't know your age ) this will be only 30-35(!)K in real terms ( 2.5% annual inflation rate). Plus your 6% might be possible, but if you look at the average return of stocks of the last 10 years( 2008-1998) you probably would be below that value. What if your house needs a new roof in 25 years from now ? Or you might have to pay college fees in 20 years from now, while you might be struggling with paying for your divorce at the same time ( not that I wish you that of course). What if inflation goes up to near double digits, not unknown of in the past ? Also you said you expect your money demand to decrease with age, well 55 is not that old plus you have nothing to do anymore. Don't know 'bout you, but I spend the most when I am off work or on leave..

rgds

[Kitsune]

If you work the whole thing out on 2% real return it's a lot easier.... We all assume that our outgoings need to stay level until we cark it, but that's just not the case. If you think you need 14G Oz to live yearly until 70, (if you work until 65 in aviation, check out how many years you will have left after you retire with an actuary, it's truly frightening), you are in the wrong job!:cool:

[raven11]

Some very fine posts gentlemen. Nice to wake up to. Well done!

Personally, I would love to have the $3.5 oz asset base by age 60, from which I feel most families could live quite comfortably.

Sadly few of us will achieve that given the current financial climate. Asset portfolios and real estate investments are generally well down, and very uncertain these days. Time will tell.

For younger pilots, the above figure should be your goal, as time is on your side.

Once achieved, retirement becomes entirely feasible!

As we all know most pilots are terrible investors. However, we do have some very successful and savy investors in our group. Maybe the AOA could host reqular seminars to offer objective advise and broader insight. Pilots could share knowlege and compare what's out there. We could gain the kind of insight you wont find on your own, for fear of committing to an investment product you know little about.

Ring, Ring....Number Cruncher...

[Kitsune]

Long ago, and far away, even before Raven joined, in an airline based in Hong Kong, several airline pilots and flight engineers were discussing investments. One of them had noticed a poster on the crew room board proclaiming astounding returns for quite a large investment. As they all knew lots about flying they also must know lots about investment, so they contacted the firm on the poster, and ended up being proud owners of a glittering brand new apartment block in the leafy suburb of Queens in New York city. The payment cheques rolled in for 4 or 5 months to much chortling and boasting in the crew room about their investment...... until the cheques stopped that is. The most senior F/E was hastily authorised to use syndicate funds to visit said garden suburb, and on a dark and stormy night (?) found the derelict vacant lot with its itinerant junkies and pikeys festering in the gloom. Assuming he must have the address wrong, he trudged to the nearest police station, and explained his predicament to a large Irish sergeant behind the desk who replied the immortal words: "You're about the 5th guy to turn up here about that vacant lot, YOU MUST BE AIRCREW TOO!). To add insult to injury one of said itinerant junkies had snuck away with his briefcase during this exchange, leaving him with no passport/ticket etc........... The only personnel worse than airline crew at investment are dentists for some reason. Avoid all syndicates populated by fellow crew members like the plague, any investment advisor that has an office in Hong Kong, and anyone associated with CX. Then you may have achance of retiring (at 65) with your pot of brass......:cool:

[Liam Gallagher]

err... how hard can it be...

Buy a modest flat in HK. Live in it and use the housing allowance to pay it down about half, say 3 years. Buy another slightly less modest flat, live in flat, rent out the first one so the rent covers the mortgage interest at least... Repeat process as many times as you can in 15 years. Then rent yourself the biggest badas flat you can and enjoy your last 5 years in HK and stash the rents from your properties.

Save 10% of your salary each year with the aim of buying a good renter in OZ. What's a good renter?; spend a day with a Estate Agent (preferably a pretty one) pretending to a tenant... you'll quickly figure it out... Buy as many as you can in 20 years...

Put your Prov fund into OZ/Euro/Emerging shares (stay away from US/China as your job exposes you to enough risk in that). After say 10 years, start converting your Prov into OZ shares and dollars so after 20 years you are in $OZ only.

I reckon after 20 years you should have $3.5mOZ.

PS. A few assumptions;

1. You don't marry your housemaid.
2. If it flys or floats or .... you lease it..
3. Anyone comes at you with a deal that is too good to be true.. guess what?
4. Apart from your Prov Fund.. which has Tax advantages... you never invest in a Fund.... Funds make money for Fund managers!
5. If you need to buy something that requires you to pay interest on a Credit card.. you don't need the item...
6. Grow a pair and take responsibility for your own investment decisions.
7. Never take advice from anonymous people on the t'nernet:}

[superfrozo]

Touche Liam, Tou-frickin'-che..!! (Especially #6.)

Of course, I can't pretend I haven't violated #5...
...or #2.

And #1 is looking better with each of tonights beers!!!:}

[CYRILJGROOVE]

And the village idiot returns to post dribble

[Dragon69]

Very good point stillalbatross!

Cyriljgroove you started another thread to have a meaningful debate as to why you should carry on past 55, but you're more than happy to return here and belittle someone that doesn't agree with you. If stillalbatross is the village idiot you're then the village retard. hopefully I'll see you flipping burgers at burger king in a few years when you're 56!

[Harbour Dweller]

You've obviously made a decision not to have children since putting two kids and a wife in 800sq/ft won't be fun.

Excellent point.

There is already enough of a financial struggle in HK if you are junior crew & raising a young family. An 800sq/ft flat with 2 adults & 2 children / teenagers would start leading in the direction of divorce.

And the village idiot returns to post dribble

Again Cyril, you prove how out of touch you are.

If you were truly honest here you would admit that all your interested in is securing your own pot of gold.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Sorry if I stepped in on your territory of slagging off at folks, It seems you are the only one with that holy right. A small collection of your snipes


Your intellect closely matches that of the bird you represent.

So Rambo what daring and dangerous missions have you been on today

get real, would rather believe a used car salesman

Yes and instead of bowing out gracefully and respectfully, you choose to stay around like bad headache that just doesn't go away.

Yes because you and your buddies posts are full of logic, intellect and intelligence

With logic like that you call my posts immature??? I wonder how on earth you passed your aptitude test

but you're more than happy to return here and belittle someone that doesn't agree with you. If stillalbatross is the village idiot you're then the village retard. hopefully I'll see you flipping burgers at burger king in a few years when you're 56!

You already did! idiot!

Stop shoveling sh/t Raven, you really are disillusioned







you seem a bit of a sad angry case, A sniper who contributes nothing of any value whatsoever....nothing not one bit of sense just angry abuse sad sad man

[Dragon69]

You would make an excellent manager or a lawyer Cyril, always showing one side of the big picture.

[Liam Gallagher]

I gave you a blueprint to acquire wealth; never said it was easy; if it doesn't work for you..... fine

Most of HK seems to raise a family in less than 800 sqs and I regularly fly with guys doing exactly what I outlined with success.

[ACMS]

What's the point of being miserable in 800 sf with only the possiblity of making something later IF the market goes up or remains steady? Quality of life NOW must mean something?

Each to their own I guess.

[boxjockey]

That's the exact problem. No one is willing to make any sacrifice for long-term gain. And don't spout off that I could work for another 10 years to make up the difference, tired of hearing it. We all have a real sense of self-entitlement. With the amount of money we make at CX, especially on a HKG base, retiring comfortably shouldn't be such a stretch. If you take advantage of what is available to you, and LIVE A LIFESTYLE WITHIN YOUR MEANS, then it isn't that hard. Plenty have done it, and you don't see them here bleating about human rights violations. Just think about it....

box

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Good balanced letter from the AOA on the RA65 debate/issue, obviously not written by Dragon69 or his dopey twin brother Vermin.

[Liam Gallagher]

Did it tell you anything you didn't already know?

Do you endorse the view that the Junior Crew's opinions are not being heard by Management; or is that just the AOA pandering to the masses: alternatively, lubing them up for the pineapple insertion:E

[Dragon69]

you are going to be fired, no option of staying on your present contract. Not much choice really eh. and CX have done it before and will do it again, I still have the DFO's letter that I "happily signed".


Why are you even in the AoA Cyril, you've already made it clear to us that you tremble in fear at the sight of management and will sign anything away. Even yesterday's judgment hasn't taught you anything! :yuk::yuk:

[Kitsune]

At least the High Court here has ruled that you CAN be forced to retire at 65, and this has been backed by the EU, so given that bypass pay for based F/)'s is out soon, we won't have to go through the whole tedious arguement in 5 years time........:cool:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

The boys and girls behing this poorly thought out plan can only blame themselves for having the BPP to based officers become a high profile issue, causing it to be withdrawn and redistributed to those willing to actually do their command. A complete c*ck up and if anything a lesson to be learnt .......lets your reps plan the strategy and if you are going to attack your own membership ...think of the consequences.

[canuckster]

For any member of our association to refuse another member legal assistance for a case that has legal relevance and merit would be immoral in so many ways and should be thought thru before you put your name to such a shameful proposition.WTF? Where do you stand with respect to the 49ers then Cyril?