AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal

[mephisto88]

I have flown with a number of people of recent, who are unhappy that the AOA have not only agreed to fund an appeal in the UK to a case which concerned retirement age, but tacitly accept this may not have many members approval.
Admittedly, the guys I have listened too are generally younger and more remote from the situation that the "close to 55's" are in, however, many of their points do have merit.
1) Was such an expenditure commitment allowed to be authorised by the Committee without approval from the members?
2) Even if authorised, should such a contentious and possibly divisive issue be voted upon by the membership?
3) Will this issue have a less than desireable outcome for some members, where if the appeal is won, aspects such as bypass pay may be harder to justify depending on this weeks interpretation of CoS by the company?
4) Does this appeal funding pass the basic commonsense test of benefitting most members?
5) If not, why are the silent majority still being quiet and not letting the AOA know they are not acting in the interests of the majority?

I hear that a member has asked the committee to call an EGM or even have an online poll to see whether this is what the membership really wants.

(AL1 - ##15Jan09 - last week, AOA have asked that if you support the issue being voted on, then 10% of the membership need to advise the AOA that they too wish the issue to be voted on democratically. Currently the 10% needed is 144 members - the e-mail address is below if you wish to advise the AOA that this issue should be voted on. ##)


However, his views had previously fallen on deaf ears, and the committee has remained on its autocratic unmandated course of funding an action that will cost all, but may only benefit a few, and possibly disadvantage many.
If you think the appeal should be privately funded, then let the AOA know at [email protected]

If you are unhappy with this funding, you are obviously not alone, but so far the negative comment has only generated an AOA update where they acknowledge it is divisive. To force their hand, more members need to voice their lack of approval or press for a democratic vote.

I believe time is short if the AOA are to reverse their decision, so you need to let the AOA know what you think, why, and what you want your committee to do. Don't put it off until tomorow, do it today.
Remember, they are your representatives who are meant to do what you the membership want.

[raven11]

Are you for real!!!

Is the AOA representative of the entire body of aircrew, or just the non Captains?

Are you saying that long time, 20 year members, should not get support, and be tossed out into unemployment? But someone who joined yesterday, or last year, or two years ago should get full AOA support.

If so, then maybe the AOA should splinter? Once promoted to Captain, one should quit and join a seperate Captains union. Is that what you're advocating?

Bypass pay for First Officer's who fail their command, or bypass pay for first oficers on a base WHO TURN DOWN THEIR COMMAND. Yeah, those are causes the AOA should fund and support.

Getting bypass pay for those pilots judged ready, wanting, and waiting for a course, who have not previously failed the course, deserves support.
As does continued employment for those members nearing 55, who have had more than their fair share of B scale, paycuts, deminished conditions, and delayed commands because of ASL, etc,etc,etc.

I've been a member for a very long time. If the AOA no longer represents me or my colleauges, please let us know. We can then explore our options.

And by the way: Age 65 benefits all members. That's why every other pilot union in the world supports it. But strangely, it appears, not ours.

[yokebearer]

I think there is a slight difference between defending clear violations of the contract - ie SO Bypass, and defending individuals who are reaching retirement age on their contracts - where it is very hard and costly to prove any sort of violation.

I have sympathy with guys reaching 55 and wanting to continue working

BUT

What should much rather be a priority is negotiating a deal on age 65 that works for everybody. If this appeal is won in England it WILL be detrimental to the efforts of the AOA to negotiate a new deal on age 65 with the company. It may force the company to extend all from then on because a precedent would have been set - and this will seriouly compromise junior officers attempts to negotiate some fair compensation. This is a lose lose situation.

[raven11]

What about clear viloations of employment law? Human rights?

So the AOA should use the courts to protect the rights of some (bypass pay), but not the rights of others (the right to work beyond the rediculously young age of 55)?

The law is the law. It does not just favour the "majority".

There is a bigger picture here. The option to work beyond 55 is a huge benefit for the entire pilot community. That's why the support for this among Captains is so strong, and amoung those over 50, unanimous!

[broadband circuit]

Age 65 benefits all members. That's why every other pilot union in the world supports it. But strangely, it appears, not ours.

Hey Raven,

The new committee have stated a number of times that they are actually IN FAVOUR of NEGOTIATING a raise in the contractual retirement age, whilst not disadvantaging younger pilots. But, surprise, surprise, the company are not interested in negotiating a fair/equitable/balanced compensation clause or clauses, rather they want to do it their way that gives them all the advantages. :rolleyes:

In fact, it appears that NR and his team seem to just want to instantaneously raise the retirement age, without the burden of by-pass pay. Personally, I would consider that a degradation of my contract, which needs my approval (ie a vote by the AOA membership).

Not likely to pass me thinks.

[raven11]

"The new committee have stated a number of times that they are actually IN FAVOUR of NEGOTIATING a raise in the contractual retirement age, whilst not disadvantaging younger pilots."

Hey Broadband,
That's great!
Isn't that what I said I support in my responce to Mephisto?

[Arfur Dent]

Tha AOA caused this problem in the UK by bringing up the 'foreign registered aircraft' issue to the extreme disadvantage of many very senior members. They are now representing the very people that THEY screwed.

How bloody ridiculous. Never miss an opportunity to SHUT UP AOA!

There is a lot of (contracted I admit) nonsense about bypass pay. IE Stay on your base as an FO and get paid as a Captain rather than do the course in HKG. Why would you ever want to put yourself through the rigours of a Command course??

We need to catch up with the normal world. I'm past 55 and don't feel like retiring. BY pass pay for those affected by people staying after 65 not 55.

End of story.

[mephisto88]

That's why the support for this among Captains is so strong, and amoung those over 50, unanimous!


I'm over 50, I don't support it, ergo - unanimous it ain't!
For UK based skippers it may well be something they wish for, personally I think the wishes of the majority of the members should be taken into account to see if this should be funded, and if not they could always fund it privately. Remember this case may only have a bearing on employment contracts in one part of the world. We should be striving towards a common goal, not more fragmented CoS.
I believe a lot of the younger lads have raised some valid points over the last couple of weeks about the funding not being approved by the membership.


Age 65 benefits all members. That's why every other pilot union in the world supports it. But strangely, it appears, not ours.

If you were a young lad who not unnaturally was expecting to get a command at a certain time, but would now have it delayed by someone who extends past his contracted time for whatever reason (no hobbies, no life ouside flying, an ugly wife or not enough moolah etc), then I can't see how that is good for the lad who's command is delayed.
Secondly, the AOA does support age 55+, its just that they too, like me, would like to see those who become disadvantaged remain compensated to a degree by the Bypass Pay provisions. Clearly the company does not wish to part with more than a cent than it has too. So if they are able to ride on the back of a court judgement and say "well the courts said 55+ is in, thats now NRA, so we dont need to pay bypass pay". Is that really fair on those who then have their cmds delayed, that there is not even a semblence of compensation?

For the record, I do believe individuals should have the option of working beyond 55, it may not be for me personally, however I still believe that it should be negotiated AOA to company, and not derived or interpreted from a UK court where such a ruling will in the short term only benefit a small minority.

So, why not put it to a vote?

[mephisto88]

Are you for real!!! I sure am.


Is the AOA representative of the entire body of aircrew, or just the non Captains?
normally just the members, regardless of rank.

Are you saying that long time, 20 year members, should not get support, and be tossed out into unemployment? But someone who joined yesterday, or last year, or two years ago should get full AOA support.
No, no and yes.

Remember mate, as one of our long departed skippers on his line check once said to Noel " If you don't ask, you're never gona learn":ok:

But back to the main question, does anyone know of valid reasons why the proposed funding should not be put to the membership for their approval if this is by the AOAs own admission a contentious subject?

[quadspeed]

I fully support the AOA's stance on this issue when it comes to age discrimination; that is to say the company's current practice of extending guys at a lower pay scale.

I'll gladly let my AOA fees cover such a court battle, because any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination. If you're going to extend anybody at all, it shall be at the same payscale as before. That would serve every CXpilots interest, especially those who want extenders gone altogether.

All in all, I don't want the company to extent anybody until we get the issue solved, including bypass bay for all CoS99 and before. But before we get to that, I certainly don't want anybody extending on worse terms.....because that makes it appealing to CX management. Make it expensive as hell to extend anybody.... which is exactly what the AOA is backing in this case. :D

Supporting the AOA in this issue is definitively not the same as supporting extending guys beyond 55. So please don't confuse the two.

[fire wall]

Jagman1 quote : Tha AOA caused this problem in the UK by bringing up the 'foreign registered aircraft' issue to the extreme disadvantage of many very senior members. They are now representing the very people that THEY screwed."

The AOA pointed out to the company what the LAW stated. The LAW dictated which path the negotiations took. The devious AOA must have an insider in the House of Lords because they passed the LAW.

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and not miss the opportunity to hide your ignorance from all and sundry.

mephisto88, the members views have not fallen on deaf ears. You (assuming you are a member) will be in receipt of a missive in the next few days re the call for a EGM. The rest of your post is unabashed scare mongering.

[mephisto88]

Firewall - Yup, been a member continuously since joining in the 80's. Can't say I've always agreed with the way things have gone, but when aspects have been voted on, have abided by the decision of the majority.
Thread wasn't intended to be scaremongering, merely relating the depth of feeling I've recently encountered amongst those who feel this is a battle to benefit only a few. If most people are happy, a vote to pass funding would pass with ease - problem solved. However it may be that the silent majority are not happy, in which case the correct process would make that aspect evident in a vote.

Glad to hear your insider info indicates that perhaps a more democratic process may ensue, but it may be somewhat presumptious to assume an egm/vote will be held. Guess we'll wait and see.

Quadspeed, a couple of very good points and cannot agree more that extensions should not be accepted on worse terms.

Well at least it seems like most people are in agreement of the desired outcome, just a lack of consensus on what route to take to achieve it.

[fire wall]

mephisto88, it is the AOA's remit to support ALL of it's members, not just the majority. If the battle were to benefit only 1 pilot then it would still be fought.
That this ethos is lost on some of you is troubling.

[Arfur Dent]

So let's get this straight. A long standing AOA member gets involved, through no fault of his own, in a battle with the Company who have enormous reserves and war chests with which to oppose said member in Court.
Member tries and fails to go it alone (no surprise here) and is now faced with defeat. The only alternative is to accept this or face an expensive appeals procedure because you may as well not bother if you don't employ properly qualified professionals.
Member approaches AOA to ask for help. AOA initially agrees but a majority of members disagree with this case as it ' doesn't affect them' or 'only benefits a few'. A vote is taken and the majority wins, forcing the AOA to abandon the help it was going to give to the member.
Be careful what you wish for.

[raven11]

Mephisto

A I sift through your sarcasm, you repeat "the depth of feeling" you've observed amongst the younger pilots. I acknowledge that, and sympathize. They indeed deserve bypass pay.

We older pilots, however, do not deserve their contempt. And our concerns should not be rejected out of hand, in some perversion of democracy or Union ethics, as our colleagues are cast to the winds of unemployment. Where's the balance in that?

What's more, you don't mention or acknowledge the "depth of feeling" amongst the older pilots, members of your own age and seniority. It would seem that you haven't canvassed them?

Ergo, I can't help but wonder why?

Nicely summarized Jagman and Firewall....I completely agree.

[Liam Gallagher]

eerrr.....

None of you have mentioned the not insignificant matter of the legal merits of an appeal. If the arguments failed once in Court; unless you can come up with something new.... it will probably fail again.... and you will probably be left with 2 fairly hefty sets of legal bills....

[Arfur Dent]

Liam - Don't forget that the case will now be put by a fully qualified and professional Barrister. The appeal would not be allowed if it were simply a re-trial. There are, I believe, many areas where the original judge could be found wanting.

The point is not to decide whether the appeal has merits but whether the AOA will ballot the membership before it helps a fellow member. If 'they' don't agree somehow that the case has merits (how on earth that happens I'm not sure) then you're on your own and may as well not be a member at all.

Is that what you younger guys want?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

The company has done a pretty good job of splitting the pilot group along A Scale B Scale lines and now it appears it has been able to fracture the younger crew members against the older crew members. I understand the frustration of the younger members however it is the company’s fault that it has created a situation whereby they are not honoring their own contracts By Pass Pay Provisions. They are employing outside Direct Entry Captains who have COS to age 65 whilst some of those that train them have COS until 55.

Imagine if CX did have a surplus of pilots and needed to retrench 100 pilots….who would that be? The junior SO?, The more junior DEFO?, the even more Junior Freighter Direct Entry Capt? The senior extended C &T? The senior extended Freighter Capt? Management does not have a clue how to deal with that minefield which they alone have created and would probably act accordingly.

Fortunately the leadership of the AOA and the GC who were elected by the membership are taking a responsible approach to our issues and take a more universal overview of representing their members. I am aware that several of our younger members have written to the AOA demanding that a vote be taken in order to approve funding of the UK age discrimination appeal. No doubt time to command is the driver of the thought process of the younger members however in calling for a vote to support or deny funding they are unwittingly giving support to blatant age discrimination in the same way our employer does.

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.

If one group starts denying another group legal justice then for example, you might find that an EGM be called to stop payment of BPP to those receiving command pay whom have no intention of doing a command course, You could even find a group of senior members petition to get rid of BPP altogether and we spiral down a course of negative in fighting and self destruct. I do however have faith that the leadership of the AOA will guide us through the best course of action and no destructive vote need to be taken

The AOA has stated that the plaintiff has a good case to appeal and rightly so has not elaborated in order to challenge in the court. The fact of the matter is that there are strong anti age discrimination laws in the UK and for CX related companies to have an age 55 retirement age may be illegal despite the tail registration, not withstanding what contract you signed 15-25 years ago when you joined.

Let the AOA leadership deal with the matters at hand, they have decided that an appeal is warranted, affordable and ultimately in the overall career interests of all members. Over the next few months several court cases/Labour Tribunal cases will be heard and pressure will be on the company to sort out the COS mess that they are in as a result of failing to negotiating in good faith over many years.

[Arfur Dent]

Quite brilliantly put Cyril.

Fundamentally if you guys take this vote, it's the end of the Union.

Are you sure that's what you want????

[quadspeed]

We elected a GC and we elected a president. They serve their term echoing the political views they represented when voted upon, as in any democracy. No governing body can function if every decisions they are trusted to make is put to a referendum.

Let the GC and its president do their job, and if you're not satisified with the current direction then either stand for a GC position or vote differently next time. In the words of a man wiser than me.. "...it is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I want to repeat the words of CyrilJGrove above:

Let the AOA leadership deal with the matters at hand, they have decided that an appeal is warranted, affordable and ultimately in the overall career interests of all members.

[Liam Gallagher]

Just so I understand;

1.The Appeal has merit because we say so (sorry...can't say anymore because it might tell the other side the grounds of our appeal:ugh::ugh:;)

2. We don't now how much it will cost; but we know it's affordable....

3. If we win; we are not sure what effect it will have (probably no effect on those based out of the UK)

4. If we lose... we don't know how much it will cost; but future (junior) members will just have to pay because the current (senior) members will be gone.

5. If you don't like the 4 points above; tough... the AOA's not a democracy you know...

Just in case anyone values a contrary view; I would have thought the foreign registered aircraft legislation was a show-stopper. I'm guessing you are going to argue that RA 55 is an infringement of Human Rights and will therefore over-ride any legislation. However, no one if saying that anyone over 55 is incapable of flying an aircraft. Age 55 is the point where our contract ends; jobs for life are a thing of past. Other contracts end after a fixed term, when a project finishes, after a certain notice period, ours at age 55. It is not ageism; just a simple, transparent way of defining the end point of all our contracts.

[Benefits Centre]

The AOA cleared the court case funds expenditure with the Company Beneits Centre.

They got to the green light to spend as much of it's members' funds on any worthless causes they wish to pursue.

Here to serve :ok:

[iflyplanes]

"Benefits Centre" jeez that's an original name. You must be a boring person to even bother, let alone steal the idea off "The Management".

[Apple Tree Yard]

...a couple of points: a) if you don't like what the AOA leadership is proposing, either vote, and accept the result, or resign. B) I can't believe that some of you have nothing better to do over Christmas other than spew bitterness and discontent over the internet. Get a life....:ugh:

[quadspeed]

It would seem very likely that many, if not all, of the GC should resign if this vote of no confidence was to go ahead. That should include the president.

If a signifcant amount of members - after the annual election has been completed and trust has been placed in the president and his GC - were to blatenly (and openly to the outside world... including CX management) voice their no-confidence in the judgement and functioning og the AOA leadership, then I would certainly resign my spot on the committe and ask others (wiser then me) to pick up the load.

It would not surprise me at all if management is posting among us in this thread, trying to split the AOA and make it obvious to those we are dealing with that the cracks run deep.

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions." PPRuNe Website

In fact, posters like Liam Gallagher may very well be management, for the AOA makes it very clear that the usefull way forward when disagreeing with your union is to use the correct channels, send emails to your representatives, talk to other AOA members, visit the office, call the president, vote at elections or stand for committee.....but do not use public forums, viewable to management, when venting such strong grievances. Doing so destroys the integrity of the AOA president and the authority of the GC to speak on behalf of its members when dealing with the company. Who would even bother dealing with a leadership group that has no negotiating authority and must return to the voting mass for a referendum onevery decision? What would even be the point of negotiations or electing a negotiating body?

Obviously from his/her history Liam is not management, but the postings are of the exact wording which a manager trying to split and discredit the AOA ledaership would use. I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right. But please consider the damage you are doing to the AOAs position.

We're nothing without a unified front.

[Liam Gallagher]

"...then I would certainly resign my spot on the committe and ask others (wiser then me) to pick up the load."

You would have us believe you are on the GC... rather than stomp on contrary views or hide behind the lame "united front"; why not try and argue me down from your position of knowledge? If you are unable to despatch me: how do you think your argument will go against the company's lawyers?

Further, this issue is not black and white; there are good arguments on both sides. The views I expressed may not be my personal view; but they are a precis of the "global" argument in favour of a Retirement Age that is being fought out in many workplaces around the world. Indeed, most AOA members are aware of the argument and perhaps they are rightly nervous about committing their money to a fight that is far from an assured-win.

How about one of you promoting the Appeal (ATY are back from Chrimbo hols yet?) tone down the personal abuse and attack the argument... to use the venacular... play the ball and not the man...

[Sygyzy]

Some guys working for SIA based LHR recently won a substantial settlement (for substanatial read a year's basic salary) after being dismissed aged 60. Won both on ageism and unfair dismissal in the UK courts (actually and out of court settlement) whilst flying Sin reg aircraft.:=

[mephisto88]

According to firewall:
it is the AOA's remit to support ALL of it's members, not just the majority. If the battle were to benefit only 1 pilot then it would still be fought.


Mate, I couldn't agree more, that where for example, the company is stiffing you on a D&G, leave, basing, entitlement to bypass pay or riding roughshod over any other aspect that is in your CoS, then yes, the AOA does, and should, come in to bat for you.
But those are cases where they are your rights, and what is enshrined in your contract is significantly easier to fight for, than something that is not.

Thats why this case is different, not only is it an appeal to a case that has already been lost once, but it is where an individual is trying to prove that something that is not in his contract, should be.

For what it's worth, I agree with him, it should be, but I don't believe many of our younger crew think this is the right way to go about it. The end result either way may have ramifications for better or for worse depending on what your rank is and where you are based.

Clearly with so many people potentially being affected by the result, the question remains, why not put it to a vote? The only reason I can see that it hasn't been, is that the AOA think it may fail to pass.

It must have been a complex decision, as the AOA want crew to be able to have the option to work beyond 55, and most crew want the option of the same, even if some, like me, dont plan to do so.
I would still therefore suggest the better option may be for the AOA to keep nutting out a solution with the company, rather than pursuing a track that may well be against the views of what could be a significant percentage of the membership. In the current industrial and financial climate, the membership needs to be united, not divided

Raven, you may be right, I asked a couple of HK based 40ish skippers their views, and they said they were both in favour of funding, as were many of their ilk, so I accept that anti feeling may be more prevalent in the FO ranks, but there are an awful lot of 'em!

Clearly however, the only transparent way for the younger members to see their views are at least being recorded, is to have the matter voted on. If it passes, it will have done so on its merits, problem solved. If it fails, then the AOA will have to get back to negotiating the retirement age issue with the company. It still seems that they need it more than we do.
Either way, the democratic process can remain intact, and hopefully the membership can remain united too.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

If you are going to deny a member in good standing the right to legal funding on the basis to appease the younger members, then you had better be prepared for a major backlash from the more senior members also.

By pass pay is the major stumbling block between an agreed increase in retirement age and I can assure you a considerable amount of senior captains are appalled that the majority of by pass pay is going to FO's on a base whom have zero intention of completing a command course,

The intent was not to pay someone not willing to upgrade and give him/her something for nothing.

You might find you may also be voting on a directive to negotiate BPP away.

As has been asked several times on this thread, Are you sure this is what you want"?

[mephisto88]

As has been asked several times on this thread, Are you sure this is what you want"?

No it isn't. But for a lot of members, it appears to be!

To pass on an analogy eloquently told to me by an SO who can't afford a car in HK: "Some guys have a Ferrari, but I dont have one, and even though I want one, the company wont give me one. I want the AOA to fund my legal case against the company so that they have to give me one. I know its not in my COS, but so many other people have a Ferrari, that I want one too. Its not fair:{"
It's unrealistic I'm sure we all agree, but you can't deny the similarities with the principle of the appeal/case in question.

Personally, I have nothing to lose or gain by this particular action, as I hope to leave soon before I am 55. You may therefore ask - why raise the issue? - I was interested to see a broader cross section of views, as almost all of those I had received previously were from SO's and FO's, and almost all were against. The whole aspect therefore seemed less than transparent and was perceived by many to benefit but a few.

An earlier poster, Raven IIRC, talked about the contempt of the younger members towards older guys. Surely that would only come around if we have lost their respect. It takes a long time to earn, but can be lost quickly. It is something which is earned through ones actions and by leading well. When it appears ones actions are selfish or self-serving, then the risk of losing that respect increases.
Do we need their respect? - I would humbly suggest that we dont, but it does our united cause as a whole no good to have a divided membership.

As a genuine question, if the appeal has such a high probability of success, would not costs be awarded to the appellant? Therefore why should the membership have to fund such a shoe-in case when the appellant will be awarded costs?..... However, if it's not such a surefire thing, then why commit to a likelihood of wasting AOA funds when the result will remain exactly as it is now?

The bypass-pay issue you raised for those on a base is an interesting aspect. Like you, I don't believe the intent of the CoS clause was intended to cover those on a base, who, now they are paid as a Capt, have no intention of coming back to HK and are happy to wait xxyrs until their number comes up to do a cmd on the base. However it is in the CoS, and perhaps could be used against the company as leverage by the AOA/membership for the NRA issue. We all know what they meant to pay for, but hey they wrote the CoS, so now they have to live with it until we agree to change it.

[quadspeed]

Liam Gallagher.....

You would have us believe you are on the GC...

No, I would not. But if I was on the GC, I would consider my resignation. I believe that's what I wrote.

...why not try and argue me down from your position of knowledge? If you are unable to despatch me: how do you think your argument will go against the company's lawyers?

I think my argument went along the following lines, two days ago, on the same thread.....

"I'll gladly let my AOA fees cover such a court battle, because any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination. If you're going to extend anybody at all, it shall be at the same payscale as before. That would serve every CXpilots interest, especially those who want extenders gone altogether.

All in all, I don't want the company to extent anybody until we get the issue solved, including bypass bay for all CoS99 and before. But before we get to that, I certainly don't want anybody extending on worse terms.....because that makes it appealing to CX management. Make it expensive as hell to extend anybody.... which is exactly what the AOA is backing in this case.

Supporting the AOA in this issue is definitively not the same as supporting extending guys beyond 55. So please don't confuse the two."

Further, this issue is not black and white; there are good arguments on both sides. The views I expressed may not be my personal view; but they are a precis of the "global" argument in favour of a Retirement Age that is being fought out in many workplaces around the world.

Exactly. Which is why I wrote...

"I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right."

How about one of you promoting the Appeal (ATY are back from Chrimbo hols yet?) tone down the personal abuse and attack the argument... to use the venacular... play the ball and not the man.

I honestly thought I did....

I asked you to "use the correct channels, send emails to your representatives, talk to other AOA members, visit the office, call the president, vote at elections or stand for committee"..... I don't see how that equates to "personal abuse"? If nothing else, I am playing the ball, ending the post (once again) with....

"I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right."

You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?

[Liam Gallagher]

I read your posts accurately, perhaps that's the problem.

The only "if" condition in the second paragraph of your post yesterday was... "If a signifcant amount of members .."; the rest of your post lead me to believe you were on the GC. Thanks for clarifying your position.;)

No pilot in his right mind wants pilots extended on reduced conditions; it's bad for him and bad for me. However, it's happening and been happening for such a long time, it's entrenched. Your point, whilst vaild, is outdated. The question is, and has been for a number of years, what can we do about it?

The AOA has been very slow to act on the BPP issue, almost to the point of impotency. The impact of a successful Appeal in the UK is hard quantify. Some argue it would only affect those on the UK base, others say that it may prompt the Company to issue new contracts to all... be careful what you wish for....

You, and others, blandly say...."...any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination." Whilst I wholly sympathize with the argument, it is incumbent upon you to come up with some case history rather than a bland statement.

Is it clearly ageism? No one was holding a gun to the retirees' heads; they didn't have to accept the lesser conditions. They could walk away at 55 at the end of their contract. They wilfully accepted the lesser conditions. Further, I'm just not certain the Law or even society is that interested in a bunch of spoilt overpaid pilots. I can't help but feel that if this issue was race or religion (one in particular..ahem..) rather than age, we would even be discussing an Appeal.

Finally, you were very selective in your quotes of your previous posts. Try quoting the bit were you float me out as Management, merely because I express a view contrary to your view of "the party line". Whilst, I readily accept your retract the idea in the next paragraph it was clearly an attempt to play the old "they're either with us or against us" tactic.

[BlunderBus]

Despite all the drama now about the handful of A scale guys staying on...(whose conditions will be dramatically worse if CX implements 65 anyway)..judging by the way they talk at work I think the majority of B scale captains would LOVE to fly past 55 to play catch up with their incomes over a CX career span.
I think junior crew have been pissed off at A scale for so long that they feel it's in their own interests to get rid of all the senior crew....HOWEVER..
once that is achieved i believe the boot will be on the other foot and they will jump over the fence and vote for age 65 as they will now be discussing their own career outcome.
54 + 1 day is stupidly young to retire captains regardless of who they work for.
Natural attrition and CX attitude to it's staff will see all the senior guys go anyway after a year or two.

[BusyB]

Gosh, I guess CX has been saying that all along and the AOA has been agreeing!!

What makes CX any more truthful now than they have been in the past when NR said RA65 would make commands faster!!:ugh:

[FlexibleResponse]

Have some respect for the AOA committee members who are identical flight crew to you in every way. The AOA committee has a charter to look after the rights and benefits of all members. They sometimes have conflicting priorities but they do pour their hearts and souls into doing what they think best for the majority.

If you think you can do a better job, then stop whinging here and get off your fat slovenly arse and join the committee yourself.

I am not trying to stifle debate, but for God's sake, have some respect.

[iceman50]

To all the FO's and SO's who are so badly affected and complaining, how long have you been members of the AOA and did you join under the reduced "cost" scheme or have you been longstanding members?:*

Memphisto88
Not quite sure what your point is, we would all like a Ferrari but some of us understand that it takes time, not the childish I want it now or I am going to throw the toys out of the cot. Some of the changes that have occurred recently to the COS have definitely benefited the more "junior" members than the senior, BPP on the base being one!:ugh:

Stillalbatross
What would the time to Command have been in your national carrier?:rolleyes:

Liam
:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

[Hiro Nakimura]

We should have one vote for every year of AOA membership - or maybe we could have one vote for every IQ point, but then that would unfortunately not marginalise the new joiners as apparently we don't get smarter as we get older. Maybe one vote per stripe? Or one vote per hour in our log book? I am happy with any system that recognises my moral and intellectual superiority over FO/SOs!

captains 'appalled' that based FOs get BPP even though hkg command available
FO/SOs 'appalled' that 15-30 year CX career A scale veterans want more time at the trough at the expense of junior officers
captains quite perturbed at being able to extend past their contractual limit but on lesser conditions. FO/SOs perturbed at having time to command extended due to extendees. captains perplexed at FO/SO perturbation about extensions.

Maybe we will have to rely on democracy to decide? But then again, how can we trust democracy when every one gets one vote? Young non captain types are obviously not as good as us and so might vote incorrectly. If they do so, I will leave the AOA in a huff - then I can sit in my rocking chair for evermore talking about how good I was and how stupid everyone was who joined after me! I know it will be the first time an older generation has ever told the younger generation it didn't know what it was doing!

I will be happy as long as the posts here reflect demagogy and prejudice as most have so far.

[slapfaan]

.....they do pour their hearts and souls into doing what they think best for the majority.

FlexibleResponse...please tell us another joke so that we may all laugh!!!!:ok:

You're FUNNY...

[iflyplanes]

Iceman,

Your comment about S/O's and F/O's being long standing members - are you saying they should have joined the AOA before we joined the company? So because an S/O has been in the company 1 year he has no right to contest the breach in his CoS?

Stillalbatros,

The GC knows and has previously published that command time will increase by anywhere between 3 and 10 years. Go reread your updates.

Slaapfan,

If you have never been on the GC then you have no right to comment on whether they do or do not do their best.

This new GC is super responsive to emails that members send in. If you have a complaint then email in. I have seen it first hand. Dont winge here, actually do something constructive and send in your complaints, questions etc. The GC is only 20 people - if everyone had an idea to make things better and actually put fingers to keyboards the GC would be even more effective in make the right decision.

Cheers,

IFP.

[Fenwicksgirl]

Cyril person. If the vote goes against this appeal, you insinuate that the senior members will resign en masse. Well that would be the first time ever the senior guys stood up for anything, shame it will be for all the wrong reasons!!!
The vote will be coming and let the results direct the course of action the AoA should take. If we let this split us then shame on those who resign because of it!!!!!

[rhoshamboe]

I seem to recall another bunch of members who were refused legal funding??

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Not sure how you got that insinuation Fenwicks Girl, just stating that if the younger members want to have a vote on the funding issue for a member in good standing with a valid legal challenge then other issues may raise their ugly head. Let the GC decide the merits, they are your representatives

There are not many crew members out there that think the BPP going to those on a base not willing to return to HKG to do their command is the intent of BPP provisions. BPP is the stumbling block in the retirement age negotiation.

[yokebearer]

Is it AOA policy to support members in their personal legal issues?

I always understood that the AOA has a mandate to -

1: Support the legal battles of members when it comes to defending their contract

or

2. In case a member gets into legal troubles over some sort of incident /accident at work.

Forgive me if I am wrong but it seems the fight in London is not the AOA's fight.....??

[raven11]

To Mephisto:

If you want another fine example of the "contempt" I spoke of earlier, you need look no further than the example above by Fenwicksgirl.

I quote: "If the vote goes against this appeal, you insinuate that the senior members will resign en masse. Well that would be the first time ever the senior guys stood up for anything, shame it will be for all the wrong reasons!!!"

Never stood up for anything he/she says? For all those guys who sweated loosing their jobs in 99, followed by the 49 who did lose their jobs, what a slap in the face.

For all the wrong reasons? There are 41 posts on this thread, the majority argues in favour of this appeal, offering sober and logical reasons for their support. Fenwicksgirl ignores these all, and offers up his venom as he suggests "we" are being immoral and shameful. Go figure.

Well...my close mate, a B scale Captain, is leaving next month. No job, and a family to feed. How immoral of me to suggest that this appeal, that favours pilots, fellow members of the AOA, being forced out of work at the ridiculously young age of 55, deserves the support of the GC, and the membership. How shameful of me.

Far more honorable for me to ignore my mate, and instead support only the issue of bypass pay for S/O's and F/O's. This while my mate collects unemployment pay. According to people like Fenwicksgirl, those are the "right reasons" to abandon fellow members in a popular, though democratic, temper tantrum, by the majority of junior members.

Yeah...I want to be a member of that union!

[Voiceofreason]

Far more honorable for me to ignore my mate, and instead support only the issue of bypass pay for S/O's and F/O's. This while my mate collects unemployment pay.
Plus a p-fund cheque too, presumably...?:}

[raven11]

To "Voiceofreason":

I resent your snide implication.

As far as your question/accusation goes, you're wrong. He does NOT have a P Fund...just like the majority of members who spent time on a base.

And what if he did? Would that somehow entitle you to some kind of recompence?

Are you in the same profession as me? So we've reached a point in our history where not only non-pilots resent pilots, but fellow pilots do as well.

Maybe it is time to retire?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

The UK case is about age discrimination and that effects most pilots in this company. It seems the younger angrier men assume this just effects A scale pilots when in fact it applies to B scalers C scalers and those on many of the other 27 contracts CX has. News Flash....B scale pilots also reach age 55.....and it is starting to occur as per a previous post.

The crux of the issue re the UK case is that A Passenger Captain is about to have his employment terminated on the basis of attaining 55 years of age and that he is a UK resident and pays taxes in a country that has robust age discrimination laws.

Why should the CX Pax Capt be forced to retire at 55 when Dragonair crew, Freighter crew, New joining crew, DEFO's and EX BA and Oasis crew can start at over 60 and go until 65.........It is age discrimination in its purest form.

Further complicating matters is that the By Pass Pay that was meant to compensate for the extensions is being paid to those with little or no intention of upgrading. The very people it was meant to compensate, The Ready Willing and Able FO will not see any BPP, HKG pilots will not get it!!!. , the senior FO on a base playing Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" is laughing his head off at the bolshy angry junior FO fighting his fight for him.

And we want to give the new joining SO with age 65 in his contract BPP as well.

[iflyplanes]

And we want to give the new joining SO with age 65 in his contract BPP as well.


actually new joiner SO's dont get BPP until someone extends past 65 - to be factual.

[mephisto88]

Raven, I am sorry that your close friend is about to have no job and a family to feed. Whilst you make it sound like he's only just found out that at 55 he has to leave, and that this is a surprise, I would have hoped he knew how old he was and have been prepared for this for a while. That said, if he was wanting to continue on, then I am genuinely sorry things have not worked out for him.

Any of us who joined with 55 in the contract, always knew that despite the lengthy ongoing talks about extending the NRA, the snails pace of the progress showed to all that it was a situation that was unlikely to be resolved quickly, and that in all probability, we would have to leave unless one was cherry picked from C&T to stay on the pax fleet, or become a trashie on reduced CoS. Personally, I've still got a couple of years to go, but I do not wish to wake up like your friend and go 'Holy cr@p I'm almost 55 what am I gonna do now?', so have been making plans for a while now, as my post 55 plan does not include cx, still will be working, but mainly beer, fishing and golf.:ok:

To Raven again, a serious question now, may I ask your reasoning as to why you think an individual appeal in but one jurisdiction would be beneficial to the membership? Do you think, or even know, that if the appeal is successful that it will automatically pave the way for the same retirement age to be subsequently incorporated in the contract for crew based in HK? how about those in Aus, NZ and N.America? I fully admit I know very little about contract law in most of those places, but I would be pleasantly surprised if the company were to just agree and say "OK, 65 is in over in pommieland, so the rest of you can now have the same NRA wherever you are based, and you may also retain your pay scales". Yeah right!!

Additionally may I also ask you why you think this appeal is a better way forward, rather than the AOA just nutting it out with the company once and for all, to negotiate a change to NRA for all crew in all bases?

Brgds.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

SO The new joiners FO and SO don't get BPP until extensions over 65 and the FO BPP is all going to folks who are content to stay in their non HKG base and get paid for a job they do not want to do, without moving like the rest of us did for years............so why are we so emotional about BPP and RA 65????

Maybe some higher payscales in the later FO ranks for ALL FO's might be a better deal in exchange for a unified retirement age???

[raven11]

To Mephisto

Excellent post. I'll try to sum up my position.

First off, I think it's worth repeating that I fully support a balanced agreement with Cathay that recognizes the legal position and rights of both the junior and senior pilots. The junior pilots deserve BPP.

So call me sensitive, but I chafe when I read the angry, and yes contemptuous, language used by junior crew to insult and subordinate the concerns of senior crew to their more "just" cause.

You're right about needing to prepare for age 55. I marvel at how quickly it is approaching, especially as I remember the early days, when all the senior pilots warned us of how quickly the time will fly by (warning to younger readers...take heed!).

In defense of not being prepared, I can only offer up the degradation of pay and conditions over the years, coupled with living in a high tax jurisdiction for 10 years on a base, along with current financial conditions, tempering the hopes of me and most people nearing the magic 55. I also offer the number of conversations I've had with those who've returned to Cathay, post 55, with real life experience, who admittedly "failed" retirement for any number of reasons. Quite honestly, I think these reasons reinforce my feeling that 55 is a ridiculously young age to retire. Accordingly, I feel justified stating that this issue benefits all members, young and old.

I think the above reasons may be why every western jurisdiction recognizes this as a human rights issue, and not just a "contract" issue.

Whether winning the appeal in the UK will have an impact on other jurisdictions...I can only hope that a win in the UK will/can be used as precedence in other jurisdictions. Not being a lawyer I can't speak definitively, but a win would not hurt. Just as the initial loss was immediately used by Cathay to put all their plans regarding post 55 on hold. A win should have the opposite effect.

I completely agree with your comment regarding "the AOA just nutting it out with the company once and for all, to negotiate a change to NRA for all crew in all bases?" Hallelujah for that! How many years has it taken so far? Will we still be talking about this five, or 10 years from now?

What I don't agree with is a vote to mandate the AOA to ignore the concerns of senior pilots because the majority of the Association is now comprised of angry junior pilots, who argue that this will take away from their "piece of the pie". Such a vote would be a perversion of both Union ethos and democracy. After all these years, after all we've been through, it would be a show stopper for me!

The Union needs to educate newer members of the Association on the past history of our industrial relations with Cathay. I think we've been beat up quite effectively. And to have that characterized or spun, on so many pprune posts, into some form of special, privileged, treatment galls me.

That sums it up for me Mephisto. I hope I've been semi-coherent.

Thanks for asking, and Cheers! Raven

[Numero Crunchero]

Just my 5 cents worth....

Our contract states 55 is the NRA for all those that joined prior to 1/1/08. So far the company is meeting its contractual requirement by offering employment until 55th birthday!

Currently the company offers employment past its contractual requirements, ie from 55 onwards, to all officers but on degraded terms and conditions when compared with pre 55 employment.

BPP for extendees will be paid to someone - there is no need to obfuscate the issue by arguing over who gets it. Does it really have any relevance to the RA65 issue whether a based FO or HKG based FO gets it? Its being paid to someone is all that is important!

Who gets BPP is not under the control of the AOA so it is not something we could vote on. Paying BPP is contractual - interpretation of who is the recipient is something that has been under the company's remit for a long time. Who gets BPP is not the 'roadblock' to solving the RA65 issue.

BPP is intended to compensate junior officers for career degradation as a result of the extension of pilots beyond the NRA. Everyone that joined before 1/1/08 expected and knew NRA to be 55 and so should be accordingly compensated by any change to NRA of 55.

Is it morally correct to place the financial burden of the older generation onto the younger generation? Is it morally correct for the younger generation to act without compassion and regard for the circumstances of the older generation? Not every extendee owns a ferrari! It is easier for a new employee to change jobs/airlines/careers than an older employee so is the burden of change best placed on the old or the young?

Those who have already achieved 4bars have everything to gain and little to lose over RA65. Those who have 1-3 stripes have far more to lose and far less to gain, in the next 1-2decades, from RA65.

Working from 55 to 65 is a win like being able to work 168hrs a month for double pay is a win - it depends on your perspective.

If the CAD annual hours limit increased from 900 to 1,000 would we insist that no current captain is rostered over 900 due to the career degradation it would have on junior ranks?

The GC made a decision considering all the stakeholders. If the membership wish to question that decision then there is process in place to allow it. It is testemant to our democracy that any controversial decision can be contested!


A difficult issue - I am glad that at the GC and membership level it is decided democratically by the majority!

[iflyplanes]

I have asked the AOA to consider negotiating with the company to increase the time available I have to pay a mortgage, from 15 to 25 years. Was told we can't do that as it disadvantages the senior members who never got it.


Really, I doubt that the current GC would turn that down as part of a negotiating package for a new RA. I would love to see the email. Feel free to PM me it.


IFP

[iceman50]

Stillalbatross

You still did not answer the question, which was "how long" to a Command in your home carrier? Please spare us the urban legends of a failed line check because he did not have a cap!!:rolleyes: Perhaps the attitude of those in the other carriers helped them pass, combined with a bit more time in?

Where does it say in our COS that it is based on 3-8 years to Command?

Where does it say in our COS that Cathay will purchase you a house for free?

Earth calling stillalbatross I think you need to join the real world. Perhaps that is why the "management" do not want to pay BPP, some are already receiving it, in the benefit of a company paid for house.

[PanZa-Lead]

We all voted for the individuals on the GC who represent us. If they deem it fit to support an AOA member in his fight ... so be it. I am sure they have sat around a table and thought it through first. So voting on EVERYTHING they decide to do is stupid and a waste of their time. When a government decide to build a stadium they dont ask the country to vote on it...they just get on with it. I suggest we let the AOA committee get on with their work and let them fight the good fight for all ( and any ) AOA members. As far as I am concerned if the committee see fit to spend our money on helping ANY member with his problems, then go ahead. For any group in the AOA to try and dictate what the GC should do or not do is not the way forward. Let the GC get on with it with our support and if we dont like it then vote them out in a few years.

[Sqwak7700]

So voting on EVERYTHING they decide to do is stupid and a waste of their time. When a government decide to build a stadium they dont ask the country to vote on it...they just get on with it.

Dude, you've been in communist China for too long. Maybe the Chinese don't ask the people if they can build a huge damm where they live, but from where I come from, building projects are voted on. They are done so in a local fashion and handled by county, but you are damn straight that it is a democratic process.

I suggest we let the AOA committee get on with their work and let them fight the good fight for all ( and any ) AOA members. As far as I am concerned if the committee see fit to spend our money on helping ANY member with his problems, then go ahead.

Again, you've been in China too long. Really, ANY member ANY problem? OK, I have a problem. I would like a few million so that I can buy HK property while it is cheap. Should the AOA use member's fees to benefit me? I hope so ... :ugh:


For any group in the AOA to try and dictate what the GC should do or not do is not the way forward. Let the GC get on with it with our support and if we dont like it then vote them out in a few years.

That is not democracy. Democracy does not hold only for "election" purposes. It is a process that needs to be repeated over and over and it involves commitment from the voters as well as the elected.

Regardless of what the reason is, what the AOA has decided to do has just put them 3 steps back after taking 1 step forward in the past few months. It makes this leadership no different than the previous. Remember the overturned vote on RPs? same ****t, different smell.

I don't care what the issue is, wether it is extending or by-pass pay, it was an aoutocratic way to go about it, that is all. Actions speak louder than words, and the AOA's actions have muted all the blaring they've recently done. I would love to see the youtube video on this one. :rolleyes:

[Apple Tree Yard]

...all the 'cat fighting' aside, the most obvious point that needs emphasising is simply this: we are almost the only airline who is not even age 60, never mind the new norm of 65. Regardless of all the contretemps, we will go to 65 because that is the industry standard. Get over it. The AOA and the company need to find a reasonable compromise, then implement it. :ugh:

[Kitsune]

As one of the biggest pussies around ATY, what is YOUR suggestion to resolve these diametrically opposed views? :cool:

[Arfur Dent]

This whole debate is being driven by a bunch of lazy self interested cowards who snivel away on their bases whilst refusing to come to HKG to undergo the ultimate examination of the Command course. Stay where you are by all means but why the hell should you be on my pay scale without shouldering the bloody responsibility??

If you are given a course date and refuse there should be a 'cooling off' period after which you either front up for the course or stay where you are on FO salary. Your choice.

Come on AOA - sort that out and this problem is solved. Don't put it to a vote because all the cowards would vote against it - obviously.


BPP should not be a freebee for those who can't be bothered or who are simply incompetent. It's for those who are genuinely disadvantaged by CX actions (like DEFO/DE Capt/extensions etc)

[Kitsune]

The first really sensible post of the New Year!! Well done Jagman1!:D:D:D

[Goonybird]

Jagman, what a load of rubbish. Clearly you are frustrated, but you're exacting your anger on the wrong people. The issue is with management not your fellow pilots. The most factual response is from Numero Crunchero, may I suggest you go back and read it.

[Harbour Dweller]

Jagman1,

This whole debate is being driven by a bunch of lazy self interested cowards who snivel away on their bases whilst refusing to come to HKG to undergo the ultimate examination of the Command course.Are you sure? What about all the HKG based FO's & SO's? Do you really think they are happy about the AOA funding this appeal.

The whole matter has been poorly thought out. Supporting this appeal will only have immediate benefit to UK based Captains.

If the appeal is successful how does it effect every pilot in CX? The AOA needs to be certain of this before going ahead.

Lets not set a precedence without knowing all the effects of it.

The AOA needs to discuss & negotiate RA65 with knowledge & well thought out strategies that balance the needs of all pilots in CX.


We need to catch up with the normal world. I'm past 55 and don't feel like retiring. BY pass pay for those affected by people staying after 65 not 55.

End of story.And you said that the FO's were self interested!!

Last time I checked the COS (prior to 08), we all signed knowingly for RA55. Now you think that just because it doesn't suit you to retire that you should gain RA65 at the demise of the FO's & SO's careers. Your comment of BPP kicking in at 65 is a nice touch also.

From reading your comments it appears that your beliefs of "self interested" are well off the mark. Maybe you need to look a little closer to home.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

It seems CX has been able to create the home grown ANGRY YOUNG MAN and now as a result of years of frustration of being mis managed and failing to negotiate in good faith, has created the ANGRY OLD FART as well.

What Jagman said is the truth.....but it could have been put a little more diplomatically

[Despot75]

Jagman, what a load of rubbish. Clearly you are frustrated, but you're exacting your anger on the wrong people. The issue is with management not your fellow pilots. The most factual response is from Numero Crunchero, may I suggest you go back and read it.

+1

If not a single A scale Captain took anything the company offered when they hit 55 then wouldn't the company be forced to apply age 65 on present terms and conditions and we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place?

+1

[CYRILJGROOVE]

And if you guys didn't take B scale on joining there would not be an A scale to blame everything on. Might not have even been a CDEF scale also.

AND IF MY AUNTY HAD BALLS SHE WOULD BE MY UNCLE

[Despot75]

Cyrilgroove

And if you guys didn't take B scale on joining there would not be an A scale to blame everything on. Might not have even been a CDEF scale also.

I also agree with you here. However, as you indicated in your edit, that is one large if!

The fact remains. It's in the based FOs contract that he can stay on the base and wait for a command. If he's entitled to BBP than he should receive it.

We as HK based A scalers are entitled to a Travel Allowance, it's in our contract. Should we have it taken away because someone else thinks we shouldn't get it?

In my opinion, BBP has little to do with Age 65. The company,as usual, want it both ways. They prefer to choose who to extend and when to extend.

Think about it. If Age 65 came in tomorrow, how many Check and Trainers would there be next week?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

If you choose not to do a command, then you are not being bypassed. I would take it with both hands if I was in their position...but I wouldn't count on it for much longer. The by pass pay mechanism needs to be looked at if it is not doing what it was meant to do particularly if it the blocker to a Unified Retirement Age.

I think we all took it as a given that you take a base as a FO then in order to get a command you would come back to HKG. You could stay as a FO on the base but as I have said several times before It was not the intent to get BPP to pay that in those circumstances.....pay it to those READY WILLING AND ABLE to do the job.

[Arfur Dent]

Perfect Cyril.!!

Most reasonable people would agree.

If you're eligable for a Command - do it!

[bobrun]

About 1000 out of 2500 are on bases nowadays! From that perspective, it's not as much a HK based airline anymore. Moreover, we don't need to come back to HK to get a command anymore, it's in the contract remember. So no, I don't think we all take it for granted that we all have to come back to HK for a command! BPP on bases is in accordance with the new realities. If you're entitled to it, you get it, jealousy or not.

A possible compromise would be to make BPP base specific. When there are extendees on a specific base, FOs who delayed their command there can get BPP (since we're allowed to wait on a base until a command slot comes up there, any extendees on your base are effectively affecting you). If no one is extending on your base, you don't get BPP once you choose to delay your command. Wouldn't that make everyone happy :confused:

[Liam Gallagher]

I disgree with your post on so many levels.

Cathay is a HK company. Cathay's relationship with the HK Government and with it's biggest market (HK) ensures that it must employ people in HK and pin its colours clearly to HK's mast. Anyone who is not prepared to come HK is potentially going to have their careers and earnings limited; whether that be for Command, a move to C&T or Management:uhoh:

As for your proposal, I'm not sure how your contract is written or applied, but for the rest of us, if a CN retires off a base his replacement is senior most suitable...ish. Once that person is qualified, he is then at liberty to take up the base or remain in HK and if necessary the base runs light. The company does not go down the list of FO's on that base to seek his replacement. BPP should mirror this.

To go with your proposal. Consider the following; if the company had a bunch of retirees in Bumfrack Nebraska and I was based in HK and had no interest in living in Nebraska, I would change my mind when I heard guys junior to me were getting BPP. I would whack my application in ASAP. The day the base became available, I would feign injury and keep the cash.

Further, we do not want the Pax contract to go the way of the Freighter Contract where the company only offers Command on specific bases. You basically get a reverse auction where the pilots fall over each other to get a Command on reduced terms. Bombay base anyone...?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Moreover, we don't need to come back to HK to get a command anymore, it's in the contract remember.

The contract has not changed, just the interpretation by CX and it could easily change again and probably should.

[Dragon69]

The contract has not changed, just the interpretation by CX and it could easily change again and probably should.


Where have you been:confused::confused::confused::confused: A contract is NOT open to interpretation for the benefit of the company. Hence some of the ongoing legal cases.

[raven11]

It’s been a while since I took part in this thread, so I think I’ll reenter the fray.

Generally speaking, I take it that a number of pilots feel that if the majority of pilots adversely affected by supporting this appeal are junior pilots their majority strength should be allowed to vote it down, regardless of the negative impact on the older pilots.

For all of you who feel that way, my response is to keep the following in mind: I felt exactly same way when I was younger, and have changed my mind since then, as I grew older, and hopefully wiser. Just like the vast majority of my colleagues nearing the age of 55 have also changed their minds.

If the vast majority of senior pilots thinking has evolved on this issue, there is at least a fair chance that younger pilots will also change their minds as they grow older and their personal situation and family commitments evolve. Just like most of us older pilots have changed our minds!

The "majority rules" argument is ridiculous on so many levels. Firstly, by that argument, why don’t the majority of junior pilots vote today on a proposal to raise their pay by chopping the pay of all Captains, so that all F/O’s and S/O’s get an immediate pay rise, i.e. lets pay everyone close to the same salary? Although this might appeal to some of the shortsighted among us, i.e. those who share an affinity with the teachings of Marx, it cannot appeal to anyone who believes in fair reward for hard work, experience, and years of service. Working beyond 55, during ones most formative years of earning (higher salary) results in more capacity to save for retirement. That’s how it works in every profession. It benefits all of us!

Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue. No contract can impose something in contravention to ones individual human rights. At least, not in any Western country that I know of. Especially in this day and age. No Western court would allow it, regardless of a majority vote to the contrary by even the most socialist-minded union. Pick up a newspaper for goodness sake! Have any of you not cringed at reading some of the more "far-out" politically correct court rulings? Regardless what someone’s employment contract says, do you really think any western court would allow an employer to kick someone out the door for turning 55? I think not. Hence the rush to cut off financial support by the "majority rules" crowd.

With regards to Bypass Pay, nothing I have read in this thread has changed my mind in that regard. If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. By entitled I mean you’ve earned it (been assessed suitable CAt A); you have not previously failed the course; or, you’ve been assessed as suitable on a base, and you’re prepared to return to HKG to do the course in seniority.

Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!

Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.

Should this not be the AOA’s stance?

[yokebearer]

I have said it before and I will say it again :

The AOA is there to defend our contract and negotiate new COS.

Regardless of whether the guys in London have a human rights case or not their CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED IN ANY WAY and therefore the AOA has no business fighting their legal battle for them. :ugh:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

If the AFTLS changes and pilots required 40 hours off after each sector yet CX continued to roster 12 hours off, the contract would not be violated in any way yet the law would have been. Clearly the contract would need to change to reflect that.

Similarly the company is forcing some pilots to retire at 55 others may continue to 65. The contract has not been violated yet the law may have been. That is the core issue and the younger members are unable to comprehend that fact

In the UK our pilots pay local taxes and are protected by many laws. They are rightfully disputing that the tail registration on the aircraft should not negate protection from open straight out age discrimination.

Good post Raven11

[Fenwicksgirl]

Thats a pretty stupid analogy. The AFTLs are part of our contract and the company have to roster to them, that is the law. If the AFTLs change then so does the rostering!!!!
Raven, a very emotive plea, using human rights issues etc in this!!! Please!! I can just see all those A scalers flying their toy a/c around the UK, claiming their human rights have been violated!!!!
The AoA are in favor of a negotiated increase to RA. I agree with this. A win in the UK courts will not guarantee BPP to the juniors or any compensation, in fact i would agree with the company if they did not pay BPP for those Capts, as now the normal RA would be 65 in the UK!!!! This is the crux of the issue!!! If the courts had said first time that yes, CX must continue to employ these guys then fine, the ball is in CX's court, i disagree with the AoA funding it!
I do agree with you about who should get BPP though!

[raven11]

Yokebearer

Listen mate: A contract cannot violate someone’s basic human rights, even if you say so in big letters.

At one time, not long ago, Cathay only employed male pilots. In the flight attendants contract they needed permission to get married. Their contract also stated they were forbidden to get pregnant. And most recently, their retirement age, I believe, was 45.

Why do you think all those contract provisions were removed? Do you think that Contract Law trumps Human Rights Law? It does not.

This issue does not only affect London based pilots, as you suggest, on the contrary, it affects us all. It is a human rights issue for those in Hong Kong and on all our bases. Do you think it would be fair that a pilot, junior in seniority, can continue to work beyond 55 in one base, while a more senior pilot is kicked out the door on another base?

Hong Kong has the majority of pilots, what if they voted to reduce pay on the bases in exchange for pay rises in Hong Kong. I mean really now...expats living in Hong Kong deserve more, don't they? Let's vote on it!

What's more, do you think we would even have a union if you and a majority of your mates blocked funding for this appeal? What if the shoe were on the other foot, as it will one day be when you become older and a member of the minority? Would you remain in a union that allowed a majority vote by the younger members to violate your basic human rights?

Fenwicksgirl. Let's not make this an A scale, B scale thing. If so, I would point out that the contract you signed would indicate that you were OK with B scale when you joined. What's more, there are now a large number of B scale pilots nearing 55. Should they not be allowed to continue to work and save for retirement?

Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.

Should this not be the AOA’s stance?

[SFGDOG]

I wouldn't waste too much time on the BPP issue. Word on the street is no more extensions, not even on the freighter as a senior Capt just found out to his horror. Won't be long, unless the world economy turns around quickly, before no one is on BPP due to no more extendees. In this climate, does anybody really think that CX wants to keep it's most expensive employee's (even if they are on B scale increment 17) if it has an easy way to let them go???

[Liam Gallagher]

"Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue.....No Western court would allow it"

I think the UK, save for parts of the Midlands:eek:, are generally accepted to be in the "West" and quite clearly, therefore, one Western Court did allow it; hence the need for an APPEAL.

I've said it previously and I'll say it again. Why is the Human Rights argument such a certainty? Nobody has a right to a job for life and all modern employment contracts have an end point... fixed period, completion of a project and/or a Retirement Age.

I would wager the Judge presiding in your "Western Court" has a retirement age.. it may 60 or 65.... so why is RA 60 or 65 deemed not a breach of Human Rights, but 55 is?

"Fenwicksgirl. Let's not make this an A scale, B scale thing. If so, I would point out that the contract you signed would indicate that you were OK with B scale when you joined"

A good and valid point. However, I would also point out; yours, hers and my contract has RA 55 and we all signed so we must be OK with it. Did you think it was a breach of your Human Rights back then? Did you raise the issue?

"With regards to Bypass Pay, nothing I have read in this thread has changed my mind in that regard. If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. By entitled I mean you’ve earned it (been assessed suitable CAt A);"

You obviously haven't been following the SO BPP debate. Next time you are flying with an SO; ask him what he thinks of this brilliant idea!

"Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55".

I sure every right minded pilot agrees with you. Sadly, Nick Rhodes doesn't. He wants to choose who extends and he wants the ability to offer differing contracts to extendees to meet his needs.(ie lower T&C's). However, he is prepared to alter his stance and offer contracts on reduced terms to all 55 year olds, in return for the removal of BPP from the contract. Unless you know a way of changing Nick's mind.... your point, as cosy as it is; is but a pipedream...

[boxjockey]

There seems to be a very slanted view on here by all of about FIVE different people. I think it has been very clearly written for many years what the longevity of our contract is. Did it not say 55 when you signed on? It did in my contract, and I am planning accordingly. Did you ever push for a HUMAN RIGHTS revolution when you were a five year FO and plenty were retiring at the CONTRACTUAL retirement age? Many of you probably never even made it to 5 year FO, as many upgraded before that point. And now, as that fateful day is approaching, you want to cry HUMAN RIGHTS!! How out of touch with the real world are some of you? Where do you think you fall in the big scheme of things? Probably top 1% of wage earners worldwide and you are crying about HUMAN RIGHTS??!! Look in the mirror guys. Get over yourselves. Rant over.

box

[Truckmasters]

I can't remember a majority of the current older generation screaming in 1995 (or earlier) that it wasn't fair that the senior pilots were retiring in accordance with their contract at age 55.

Maybe the current seniors used to have the same myopic view as the current juniors. But now that it actually applies to them........Well that's really not fair, is it?

Hmmmmm

[raven11]

Liam:

Reread my paragraph regarding political correct court rulings, and if you still feel age 55 will be upheld...well, your only wishful thinking. On the other hand, if you’re so sure the appeal will be thrown out, then you’ve got nothing to worry about funding it.

You're wrong about the judges too. Many work into their seventies. As do doctors, lawyers, and most professions....for as long as they can do the job. As far as pilots go, ICAO says 65 is OK.

Did you not read the part of my post where I acknowledged that I had changed my mind about age 55? What about the part that mentioned that so have the vast majority of my colleagues? And the part about me predicting that you will too, did you notice that?

I know what my contract said when I signed it...that was my point to fenwicksgirl. Although I was happy with my contract when I joined, so was he as a B scaler. If after the fact one realizes there was a flaw in their employment contract, or a clause or two that could stand improvement, then one hopes to negotiate a change to that contract. Employment contracts aren't cast in stone. That's what we're all debating here isn't it? Improving our employment contract. Or are you suggesting we should never negotiate any change to our contract? Doesn't everyone feel they should be entitled to a pay raise every decade or so? Or are we bound to our original contract?

I am at a loss to understand your point about second officer BPP. I know I'm having a hard time getting over myself, but what are you suggesting? I thought I stated several times that I agreed with BPP, for those who deserve it. What are you trying to insinuate?

You didn't question my points regarding "majority rules". Should we in Hong Kong vote ourselves a pay raise?

Once again I repeat, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.

[Loopdeloop]

Raven. What Liam is alluding to is that if you introduce a way of the company deciding who deserves BPP, we'll end up with a similar situation to that which the S/O's are experiencing now. He's right, and the only way to continue with the BPP issue is to follow the CoS to the letter - as soon as we accept a company translation of this, we'll be in a whole heap of trouble.

Also, let not your blood boil over the F/O on more pay than had he passed his command. He's probably not on bypass pay, just enjoying a pax European base and the command he was attempting was a freighter base in the UK or Hkg.

[Liam Gallagher]

"You're wrong about the judges too. Many work into their seventies.."

Really.... the following link would suggest otherwise.

Policy review after judge forced to retire wins age bias case | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/23/workandcareers.law)

This is an interesting article as it suggests a UK Judge who was being forced to retire at 65 challenged the decision. The Home Secretary argued that retirement age 65 was necessary to ensure a flow of Judges through the system (sound familar). It seems that was an acceptable defence, however the Court ruled the Home Secretary had other means of achieving this aim. The Home Secretary lost and Judges now retire at 70.

Net sum of this.... the outcome of any Appeal is uncertain...

"On the other hand, if you’re so sure the appeal will be thrown out, then you’ve got nothing to worry about funding it"

Firstly, I have never said the Appeal will fail. I have consistently said, I don't know... My objection to the Appeal on uncertain grounds is the massive cost. Can you, or anyone else quantify the cost of a failed Appeal.

How about you, or someone else, answer some of my questions?

1. What will the Appeal cost?
2. In the orginal case, was the Human rights argument put before the Judge; if not... why not?
3. How come RA55 is a breach of Human Rights, whereas RA 65 is not?
3. If successful; what will it mean for non-UK base people?
4. If successful; what will it mean for UK based people?
5. If successful; will those who were UK based and have either been forced to retire, or have been forced to accept reduced terms, be entitled to compensation?

[Ex Douglas Driver]

The following is a couple of paragraphs taken from the 06 Jan AOA update, and specifically addresses the AOA funding of the UK appeal:

The GC has always recognised the extreme divisiveness of the issues surrounding an increase to the Normal Retirement Age. Our position has been a consistent one, that we want a fair deal on RA65 for everyone. By necessity, there must be compensation for those disadvantaged by a change to our CoS; no-one is suggesting otherwise. Equally, no-one is suggesting that we are preventing a move to RA65.

Remember, the Company has exactly what it wants at the moment; all the extendees it wants, for as long as it wants – and no longer – and at the (reduced) price it wants. Why would they want a RA65 deal?

For those who are members, take the time to read the rest of the update that is residing in your inbox.

I personally think the GC has succinctly put in two paragraphs, what has taken 5 pages of emotive, devisive tripe on here. It has been said before, and I'll say it again: This is of management's doing, not the AOA's.


disclaimer: I am not on the GC!

[raven11]

Loopdeloop

Sorry I just noticed your post.

You misread my comment regarding the F/O (Is my writing that bad?). The F/O I was referring to failed a pax Command, not a Freighter Command!

I said the following:

Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!

My point was that the co-pilot was earning more than the Captain was. You know the guy in charge of the ship!

Are you saying that you'd be OK with an S/O on your crew being paid more than you (that's assuming you're an F/O)?

[bobrun]

So many different opinions, interesting. It's funny to see how everyone's idea of what is right or wrong always seem to revolve around what is the best for them considering their current situation (whether that's intentionnal or not, who knows :ooh:). Young guys do not want RA65, but once they're older they'll defend it by saying they have grown wiser!

We could debate RA65 as long as we want; it won't change the fact that the company isn't prepared to pay the small 1% it would require to make it a fair deal to everyone. They simply don't want a deal on it right now. As far as the human rights issue is concerned, that has already been turned down for pilots in courts, and not just in the UK.

And by the way, regarding SO BPP, one important issue is that SOs who deserve it are simply not getting it. Get informed.

[Dragon69]

Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!


Raven11, are you that easily agitated or that gullible to believe anything anyone tells you? Do you know the whole circumstance before you let yourself get an ulcer? What if the F/O was much, much senior to the young captain, (you know the guy in charge of the ship), and failed his command course only because it was politically motivated. ie. some of our very senior ex flight engineers who have been held back unfairly.

[raven11]

Dragonfly

Spare me your insults. Are you that angry that you can't tone down your invective and have a civil debate. Let's not turn PPrune into some kind of facebook for adults.

So, in your example, are you suggesting it's OK for a senior ex flight engineer, who failed his command course, oh yes for political reasons (always the conspiracy), deserves to be paid more than the Captain of the ship?

Now just who's being gullible here?

Bobrun. Same to you mate, spare me your righteous anger and read my posts. It's obviously you that needs to get informed. I've said it at least a dozen times: I'm for S/O bypass pay. I'm for bypass pay, period. For those who deserve it.

I, agree with Ex Douglas Driver's last post. I think the AOA update of Jan 6th strikes a balanced stand. The same position I've been trying to articulate throughout this thread. The Union is obligated to protect and further the interests of ALL its membership. Not just the "majority" to the detriment of the minority.

[Dragon69]

Ravine11


So, in your example, are you suggesting it's OK for a senior ex flight engineer, who failed his command course, oh yes for political reasons (always the conspiracy), deserves to be paid more than the Captain of the ship?


A perfect example of just how out of touch you are when it comes to issues that doesn't affect you!

You want to have a civil debate? I suggest you go and educate yourself with matters affecting all crew, not just your self serving interests.

Oh and please step off your high horse and spare me the "I am the Captain of this ship" attitude, I thought we left that behind decades ago. It's a team work remember, but again with the tone of your posts it really doesn't surprise me.

Are you that angry that you can't tone down your invective and have a civil debate

A bit of criticism made you all huffy and puffy? Poor little boy :{:{

[Liam Gallagher]

Good post and injects a bit of reality into the thread.

However, I would suggest that the company doesn't entirely have what it wants. It doesn't want to pay BPP. Hence the under-hand dealings on SO BPP and the complete non-payment of BPP for over 55s on the Freighter (despite what the COS says) and the complete lack of transparency on BPP generally.

To the other posters on the tread; sorry to interupt your play ground spat with grown-up talk.... now kiddies, who threw sand in whose face?

[Arfur Dent]

Did we really cease to recognise that one person (ie the Commander) is in charge of the ship (and therefore the 'team') decades ago Dragon69??? I don't think so.

He should always be paid more than other crew members too! That HAS been the case for decades. Should prevail now too.

[Voiceofreason]

Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue. No contract can impose something in contravention to ones individual human rights.


I don't think this is quite right, Raven - as others previous have mentioned, why is 65 not a human rights issue and 55 is? I agree, times change, and therefore the actual ages referred to must change (as all other perceptions regarding race, age, sex etc must), but I really don't think it boils down to human rights. Contractual and Equal Opportunities Law, though, yes.

I tend to see it as the ending term of the contract I'm on. Many pilots in other carriers are offered fixed term deals - one month, 5 years, it doesn't matter. When they reach the end of that contract, they need to sign a new one in order to get paid.

I see reaching my 55th birthday as the same process - if I want to carry on, I need to sign a new deal. In this light, it is effectively a very long-term (30 years odd) fixed contract. I have always expected to end this contract at 55 (unless we reach a deal that suits us), as this hasn't changed since the day I signed.

And I'm not sure the AOA update addresses the issue at all - the fact is, the funding is still proceeding, no matter if they or the company "started it". Sounds like a playground taunt now!

[Voiceofreason]

The Union is obligated to protect and further the interests of ALL its membership. Not just the "majority" to the detriment of the minority.


Didn't someone say you couldn't please all of the people all of the time...? Someone, somewhere will always lose out or be unhappy no matter what decision anyone makes.

I guess then it becomes weighing up the various losses and ensuring they are as minimal as possible.

[Dragon69]

He should always be paid more than other crew members too! That HAS been the case for decades. Should prevail now too.


Jagman in a perfect world yes that would be true, but here at Cathay it is far from perfect. You have some A scale FOs flying with B scale captains, so take a wild guess which one would be earning more. As a B scale captain will that infuriate me? Not in the very least!

Yes agreed the captain has the final word, but when someone refers to their job by using words such as "commander", "in charge of the ship", these words do nothing more than blow sunshine up your a:mad:. It needlessly elevates ones position to justify ones self importance. You are joe blo employed as a captain by Cathay Pacific, nothing more, nothing less, and when the airplane comes back down to earth after a flight, so should the captain flying it.

The above has some relevance to this thread in that once those who want to extend beyond 55, and are financially well off, grasp the fact that there is much more to life than being a Cathay captain, then perhaps the need to extend isn't that attractive.

Liam,

After 5 pages of the same grown-up argument a couple of threads that's slightly off topic is not the end of the world.

[raven11]

Dragon69

As I said in my last thread, spare me your insults, and please take that enormous chip off your shoulder. If you can't take it, don't be the first one to dish it out.

Your point about me "educating myself", well why don't you help me then. Can we debate the thrust of my point: That is, as I keep repeating, that Bypass Pay should be paid to those who deserve it, and we should all have the opportunity to work beyond 55. Can you stay focussed and stick to that...without the temper tantrum, and insults!

Educate us all by giving us your reasoned arguments as to why your colleagues, I mean teammates, approaching 55 should face unemployment to satisfy you?

Oh, and by the way, the vast majority of pilots I fly with at Cathay are among the best individuals I have ever encountered in 35 years of flying. Top blokes! The Best! I don't know any that place themselves on a "high Horse" as you so flippantly suggest. One of them is my mate, a 15-year B scale Captain, who wishes to remain flying, but instead is leaving this week.

Spare a thought for him won't you!

[Dragon69]

Spare a thought for him won't you!

Why is there no life after Cathay?? Is he being sent to the guillotine?? No thanks would rather spare a thought to the poor civilians being killed in Gaza. Keep it in perspective!


Educate us all by giving us your reasoned arguments as to why your colleagues, I mean teammates, approaching 55 should face unemployment to satisfy you?



Been a Captain for a while, just because I don't share your views about extension doesn't make me a junior crew. Regardless of whether there is a legal obligation to change to 65, I believe it is morally and ethically wrong for a 15-20 years captain to extend at the detriment to our junior crews simply because he thinks it is his god given right to extend beyond his CoS. As someone pointed out, I don't recall anyone making a fuss about retirement age 10 years ago, but now that the carrot is being dangled in front of us, all sorts of poor excuses are being drummed up to justify the cause.

You stated that as one approaches retirement then their views on extension will change. If so, in order to convince us please give an insight as to why a long serving Captain like yourself would want to extend. Is it purely financial?? lack of hobbies?? lack of family/friends?? What is the real motive behind wanting to extend, it is an honest question requiring an honest answer.

[No-Wai]

Sorry Raven, but I wouldn't spare a thought for him, and I'm a B-Scale captain with <2yrs to go to 55. I appreciate he may want to keep working for CX (and for that I understand his diappointment), but seriously, 55RA is a surprise to him? We all new what we signed on for, and (should) have been planning accordingly. Sure, peoples' circumstances change, that's why a few years out you start exploring other employment opportunities. There is no way in hell that had I been desperate to work beyond 55 that I would be expecting CX to miraculously bail me out by unilaterally imposing RA65.

Quite frankly, this "age 65 is coming" mantra is starting to smack of desperation for many. If there's one thing this industry has taught me, it's that there aint nothing certain - even if it IS coming, I wouldn't be planning on it in the near future.

[Loopdeloop]

I don't think it's a great idea for the AOA to fund the appeal as it sets a precedent that may come back to haunt them, but I voted for this committee and I'm happy they're doing a good job. They discussed the matter long and hard and I don't see any reason for a separate vote on the subject. The appeal will be heard whether the AOA pay for it or not so the only argument is over the money and it would be a shame to divide our membership further over "just the money"

Raven
1. Who decides which F/Os "deserve" to be paid BPP?
2. I disagree that the Capt needs always to be paid more than the rest of the crew - Talk to any of the guys who were young Herc/VC10/Tri* captains in the RAF and you'll find that they were frequently the lowest paid members of a 3 or 4 man crew but it had no bearing on the operation. Here at CX, we have a poorly executed seniority system, and with the demise of the FACA we have European pax F/Os flying with London based freighter captains. Usually this results in the Captain being both the more junior and lowest paid crew member (Apologies for going off topic Liam!)

[raven11]

I tip my hat to you last three gentleman (that includes you Dragon69). Three excellent posts! Well done.

You all have me thinking.....

[raven11]

Well, it’s beginning to feel like I’m writing a book, but here goes…


Why didn’t we older blokes say something 10 years ago? Well, because…it wasn’t an option then. There was ONE common COS for all pilots. The rules were clear and inviolate! Everyone had a good provident fund, good pay and conditions. Nobody was allowed to stay beyond 55. There was only the one set of rules.

The rules also said junior crew were not allowed to jump seniority and do an early freighter command. Those of us, who were here then, can remember that the notion of jumping your mates in the Command queue was treated as nothing short of Blasphemy. It was forbidden by the Union, and those that did were shunned. ASL and early commands had a significant impact on many of us who ultimately had our Commands delayed for years (five years for me) with no bypass pay or compensation. If you weren’t here, then try to imagine telling your best mate you were going to jump him in the command queue. Friendships were ruined. Remember?

But undeniably, the game was beginning to change, whether we wanted to believe it or not.

Over the next 10 years or so, dozens of different COS and conditions evolved. To the point where today, quite frankly, it’s a mess! Today there are no longer one set of rules, but rather many options available for both the younger crew and older crew that were not available 10 years ago. These changes have mostly been for the junior crews, but for several years now, the older crew have been watching as large numbers continue to work beyond 55.

So naturally, given the wide range of packages out there, everyone examines his/her personal circumstances in that context. Should I take an early Command, should I work beyond 55, should I go on a base, take a joker, resign and rejoin on COS 08 so I can take a base, what are your conditions, what are my conditions, what are his conditions, etc, etc, etc. It’s a mess!

Many younger pilots have been all over the map while exploring different COS and career options within Cathay, because things have changed, industrial relations have soured, and different options are now commonplace. So, given the history, is it really fair for you same people, who have personally explored different options to which you joined on, disparage me and my mates nearing 55 for exploring the options open to us? Let’s be fair, honest, and consistent here.

What we need is a common set of conditions, like we used to have. By any moral standard, the Company must be convinced that a common set of working conditions is necessary for a stable and happy work force to exist. Otherwise, there will be an ultimate cost. Until then, until the AOA can sit down with the Company and hammer a deal out, well… we are all just trying to do what’s best for our families and us.

Why aren’t some of us better prepared for age 55? As I said in a earlier post, I marvel at how quickly 55 is approaching, and I can’t help but remember my earlier days, when all the senior pilots warned my group of how quickly the time will fly by. Quite frankly, I thought they were nuts!

So, in our defense, there are many reasons we might want to work beyond 55, but in summary most individuals nearing 55 would probably offer a variation of the following themes. Among them the degradation of pay and conditions over the years; or perhaps living in a high tax jurisdiction on a base; or, perhaps the current financial meltdown. Whatever. These and many other reasons prevail as to why the hopes of me and most people nearing the magic 55 may have waned.

As well, just look at the number of people who have extended or returned on reduced conditions. Canvass them and you’ll hear real life reasons as to why they admittedly "failed" retirement”. OK, we can self righteously disparage their failure, or we can ask ourselves, quite honestly, “there but for the grace of God…”

Quite honestly, and as I’ve said, I now feel that 55 is a ridiculously young age to retire. I love my job, I’m good at it and I’ve been doing it for 35 years, so given my explanation above, why should I go and do something else, or “get a life” as some of you say. Well…because this is my life!! And I like it, thank you very much, just the way it is? As long as I’m not hurting anybody, I see it as an eventual benefit open to us all. It may be you one day that needs or wants to continue beyond 55, it may not.


So I feel quite justified stating that this option is good for all members, young and old. The ability to continue to work, save, feed your family, etc. As long as bypass pay is given to those who deserve it.

If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. Who decides who gets BPP (to answer Loopdelop)? Well, your COS decides. As I’m sure the labour tribunal will agree, very shortly, in the case brought before it by the S/O’s.

So given my explanation above, and the current wide range of options available to all crew, young and older, would it be fair for the AOA to only support the junior pilots in their personal struggles, desires, wants, and needs? Or should it support the entire membership and hammer out a deal that benefits us all? A common set of conditions that recognize fair compensation, i.e. BPP, and the right to work beyond 55 for us all!


P.S. to Dragon69, to answer your first point in your last post: Maybe there can be peace in Gaza if the bad guys stopped firing thousands of rockets and killing innocent civilians in Israel…..but let’s not go there!

[Liam Gallagher]

I nice post that explains your position. It disappoints and frustrates that many critisize those who wish to fly beyond 55; the most vaild reason is they want to and coincidently the company wants (some of) them to.... the rest is their private business.

The problem is the company will only offer flying to all over 55 year olds when the pilot body drop the BPP. Unless you are promoting that as an idea (I believe you are not) we have a stalemate. Do you or anyone else have any idea as to how break this stalemate?

PS.. who wants to live to 100.... every 99 year old!!

[Arfur Dent]

Dragon69
You're quite entitled to your version of what being a Captain means on your flight deck but spare us the lectures about the use of the word 'Captain' or 'Commander'.
I was offered an extension. I took it. Why I took it is my business and nothing to do with you. Quite a few people were given extensions 10 years ago too.
Normal retirement age is a legal right as life has moved on from the days of the 'mill owner' (!). Age discrimination is illegal in most countries.
The transition may extend a few people in their time to Command but so would a mass exodus from the Training Department.
65RA is coming. Get over it but please do us a favour and resign at 55 so that you can enjoy your life/friends/family/hobbies etc.
Bet you don't!

[Dragon69]

Raven11

I was here when people were jumping seniority to take an early freighter command with ASL. It was a blow and a reminder to us all that principals and moral values took a back seat to personal gains.

You're quite right, up until then we had one CoS and therefore one goal. With the introduction of bases, B scale, ASL, etc.. people took what suited them the most at that given time, and it was the start of a downward spiral.

So given my explanation above, and the current wide range of options available to all crew, young and older, would it be fair for the AOA to only support the junior pilots in their personal struggles, desires, wants, and needs? Or should it support the entire membership and hammer out a deal that benefits us all? A common set of conditions that recognize fair compensation, i.e. BPP, and the right to work beyond 55 for us all!


Very fair comment and most, including our junior crews, will agree with you.

Personally I cannot fathom how one would want to work beyond 55, certainly not in the current climate. Rostering, FTLM, every aspect of our CoS is being eroded to get the most productivity. Do I really want to do an overnight Delhi followed by an overnight Dubai when I am 60? Perhaps you are on base and enjoy a slightly better roster, but what if three man long haul is introduced, or the threshold is increased to 92 hours, would you be so keen to extend??

Although it is a difficult task, I hope an agreement is reached that will satisfy old and new.

For those that want to extend beyond 55, I am always reminded of a letter written by the late Capt. Matheson to the AoA. I am sure you recall that letter Raven, but for some of our younger crews it is a poignant reminder of how precious life is and how there is more outside of Cathay.

The gist of the letter is that frustrated and fed up with Cathay he made a spur of the moment decision to leave Cathay in the mid 90s. He eventually found a job as a fire bombing pilot in an old converted WW2 bomber and having a time of his life. But for many years he often looked back and pondered whether leaving his A scale salary was the right move. That question that had been nagging him for some time was clearly answered the day he was diagnosed with cancer. Ultimately whithout any doubt he realized that his spur of the moment decision was the best decision he has ever made.

You may feel ridiculously young, but your body isn't! If you were told you had five years to live, how would you live your life?

[Dragon69]

Get over it but please do us a favour and resign at 55 so that you can enjoy your life/friends/family/hobbies etc.
Bet you don't!


You're quite right, will be leaving before 55!:ok:

[Dragon69]

Normal retirement age is a legal right as life has moved on from the days of the 'mill owner' (!). Age discrimination is illegal in most countries


So is pay discrimination! If you want to argue outside the scope of your CoS then likewise every B C D scale will have a valid argument for being paid less than A scale for same job.

[iceman50]

Stillalbatross

Just curious when did you join?

[raven11]

StillAlbotross

Spare me your sarcasm. Either post mature comments or non at all.

When you or the S/O's get BPP, it will be more than I got, and you will lose nothing. As well, you will have the same option to continue to work when you turn 55. In other words, you'll have it all.

Unless it really isn't bypass pay that bothers you but rather the delay in upgrade.

If you want, I could tell you what I was told to do when I complained about the delay to my upgrade.

Please reread my earlier post.

[Kitsune]

Jagman, enforcing a contract that ends at 55 is not age discrimination, it's exactly what it says on the tin, the end of a contract freely entered into by both parties as me learned friends say.... what IS age discrimination, certainly here in UK, is to pay someone less for the same job due to his/her age....... perhaps the HKAOA is fighting on the wrong front........ :cool:

[Arfur Dent]

Kits

Yes I agree except that forcing someone to retire at age 55 is illegal in the UK. It's not the end of a contract - it's retirement from CX. The RA is 65. What you say is correct and, had the AOA shut up about where the aircraft was registered, all UK extendees would have reverted to their original salary, aircraft type, and COS once they had fulfilled certain criteria (ie if ext on freighters they had to do 3 yrs).

Having caused this problem (thread title) the least the AOA can do is to help one of its' Senior members. Yes - I know the AOA was 'only pointing out' etc etc but if they hadn't, the resulting advantage to a lot of people would have been a great start.

[Loopdeloop]

Jagman
It's the company that pointed out the country of a/c reg in defense of their NRA 55 case with CM.
Are you referring to the fact that the AOA pointed out that the takeover of aircrew by CX UK must be covered by TUPE regulations? If so, don't rest this against the AOA door. What PW stated in his misguided "going onshore brief" was that the conditions you state would apply to the senior crew and that all bypass pay would cease for UK based crew. This was clearly a degradation to all F/O's CoS, so an F/O friend of mine sought independent legal advice that stated the same as that which the AOA uncovered. It was going to happen under TUPE regs whether the AOA wanted it to or not!

[Liam Gallagher]

Just because you keep saying it's Age Discrimination and therefore illegal doesn't make it so.... answer the question...

If RA 55 is age discrimination; why is RA 65 Ok?

[Fly747]

Because RA65 is the regulatory limit.

[Humber10]

If time to command does increase to 14+ years, my guess there wont be many knocking on HKGs doors. I am sure there will be plenty of other opportunities out there, with short time to command, EK is one of them.

HKG was a place to come for a good career with rapid promotion, now it is just a stepping stone. So nothing to worry about there. Sure I like HKG and dont like moving. But there will be other opportunities, especially when things pick up.

You wont catch me flying long haul past 55 yrs, that's one reason I came to cx. Age 65 is upon us and will be a permanent fixture soon. I dont think cx realize that people wont come here unless they have something to offer, and now that time to upgrade equates to retirement age, my bet is most will just stay at home with their home carriers or go to the sand where the real opportunities will exist in the next up cycle.

So I give full support to the AOA upholding everyones contractual rights, which are printed in black in white. I dont however see why we support anything outside the scope of the contract. Sure it may be legal to retire at 65, but we all joined on a contract that states 55.

Good luck to all of us, in getting what we want, one way or the other though it will be at our collegues expense. :ugh:

[ACMS]

Well the way things are going I wont be able to afford to retire at 55 and then somehow live another 30+ years on.....................

I just wont be able to do it.

So if CX offer me an extension I will have no choice unfortunatly.

[Humber10]

Not a personal attack, but maybe cx or the AOA need to start running courses for personal budgets. If you cant afford to retire after a career with cx at age 55 (hkg based with housing), sounds like people are living outside what they can really afford...

[Liam Gallagher]

True; but if a Court rules that to force someone to retire based solely on their age then the UKCAA will not be able to enforce an ICAO limit. If you pass your medical, you can fly in UK airspace at any age.

Should the ruling be a EU ruling; then the game opens right up.

Overarching all this, the UK/ EU will be obliged to lobby ICAO to remove the restriction.

But don't fret..... Jagman1 wont answer questions from a pesky Junior Officer... He's a Captain... he asks the questions.....

[Arfur Dent]

No Liam - I have people who ask questions for me!:)

[iceman50]

HUMBER 10 don't be sanctimonious. You have no idea what other peoples personal situations are, you may be lucky enough to have a secure financial outlook others do not, for whatever reason that may be. Do not crow about the housing as some of you have benefited from joining at a time when the company relaxed the rules and more importantly HK relaxed the rules and took away the requirement for a 30% deposit, not the money back schemes which have benefitted some of the SO's and FO's. Luck on the date of joining, much the same as to whether you were A / B / C or D scale or whether you had / will have 3 or 9 or X years to command. Please tell me where it staes in our COS that you are guaranteed a quick time to Command. Anyway as another contributor has said I thought all this "Command" thing was bad CRM or wanting to walk around with 4 bars on all the time, when we are just joe schmoes.

For all those out there thinking the approaching 55's should be planning ahead, you do not know if they are not! Perhaps the offer of an extension was there prior to this financial bxxxs up and now it has been withdrawn. Perhaps the extension offer on degraded terms was actually better than what is on offer elsewhere and thus less stress on ones family. Perhaps some of the approaching 55's have had there COS unilaterally changed and lost financially as a result during their time as an FO.

When will you "A Scale" bashers grow up. All Captains are not on A scale and all those approaching 55 are not on A scale. Plus A Scalers have had there fair share of cuts imposed on them. How many of you on there now whinging about time to command joined during the dispute, when there was a recruitment ban nicely helping the management scxxw our COS as it was then!

For all those that do not want to fly past 55, nor do long haul great I am pleased for you, however some of us actually enjoyed our "job" so please don't put your mindset is the best or what everyone would like. If you are fit, pass the checks then RA65 it should be for those that want it.

[Liam Gallagher]

You say RA65 should be there for those who want it. Clearly, that will delay promotion for the Junior Guys. The company have indicated that they will not introduce RA65 for all until the pilot group drop the BPP clause from the contract. Should the Junior Guys "suck it up" or do you have a solution to break the stalemate?

Jagman1..... are you up early or going to bed late?:}.. oops.. another question

[ACMS]

Yeah so the junior guys get their upgrade delayed by a few years.......................So what.

They WILL get an extra 10 years later on wont they? At Captain pay, correct?

So, NC should remind us what the TOTAL effect on CAREER earnings this makes.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

There are so many posts and comments that I would like to remark on, however going back to the core issue regarding HKAOA funding of Charlie’s case some facts have come to light in the last few days.

It is no secret that a HKAOA member is attempting to gather support for a motion to put to a vote a resolution to deny another member in good standing the HKAOA funding for the UK age discrimination case. My own personal opinion is that this is a disgraceful proposition and I would be very disappointed in the membership if 10% of the members put their name to the call to arms. In my 28 continuous years of pilot union membership I have never heard of a vote to deny another member legal representation by other members of the same union.

The GC was voted by the membership to represent them and after much deliberation, time and effort, a decision to afford Charlie the funding was made by the GC. The amount of money involved was considered, and deemed affordable. I am led to believe the amount involved happens to be far less than Charlie’s contributions over the years for what that is worth.

What may not properly comprehended by the initiators and supporters of the divisive motion is that even in the event that the motion was successful and funding was withdrawn to the member the court case is still going to proceed. A result will still be forthcoming and the ramifications are still going to be the identical in the same time frame regardless of AOA involvement.

The proposers are going to deliver a major divisive body blow to the union and pilot body in general. Whilst we argue amongst our selves over an insignificant amount of money the company will rub their hands in glee. CX will continue to employ Direct entry Captains and not pay BPP , they will continue to have a separate Freighter COS that is not a valid COS, they will continue to pay BPP to whom they dictate, The new rostering deal will sneak up on us after they cancelled it part way thru only its second term. They will continue to train up Oasis and BA pilots in the LHS taking away your commands and allow them to fly to 65. The angry young men in the meantime will have to go through all of the pre command hoops, line checks tech quiz, simulator assessments, LOFT flights. They will continue to pick and choose whom to extend, if they extend, how long they will extend for and they will continue to age discriminate! And hack away at your COS forever searching for the lowest bidder Captain!

What the proposed motion is really saying is that some of the membership has no confidence in the GC to represent them and the GC is financially irresponsible. The GC will be diverted from their primary task of protecting your COS and attempting to engage the company in order to produce to the membership a balanced view on the decision making process involved in approving the funding. It is going to take up an inordinate amount of GC time and the case outcome will not be affected by the funding issue. The other legal cases in the pipeline protecting your COS may take a back seat and never see the light of day if the AOA implodes.

Remember who is screwing with your careers in an unfair dictatorial way, keep your eye on the ball and do not waste the GC’s time on something they have spent too much time on already. Think carefully if an email comes your way canvassing support for the potentially union splitting vote.

[Numero Crunchero]

I must have a different take on things. If the GC makes a decision and the membership want to question it, so be it. A bit like PF/CN adjusting fuel burn and fuel required after a change to ZFW - if the RC or SO think there has been a mistake, they question it. Then everyone works it out again until we come up with a common answer - or until they see things my way;-)

A criticism of many past GCs has been the lack of democracy, transparency and accountability. So if 10% of members think that the GC hasn't made the right decision, then an EGM will be called to ensure the will of the majority is carried out.

A general in war may need to be autocratic and decisive...a union GC in peace has the luxury of being consultative and responsive.

I wouldn't read too much into whether 10% want a vote or not. Still, thats just my opinion!

[boxjockey]

ACMS,

Just the kind of response I would expect from you. I've got mine, so to heck with the rest. Don't worry, you can work another 10 years because I couldn't budget appropriately. Give me a break. Someone else said this is for the betterment of all? NOT FOR ME, or anyone else who has joined in the last seven years, or anyone who will join after us. I would suggest you all go and read the study concerning retirement age and age of death. The only thing 10 more years of work will do for us is put us closer to the grave. It's essentially working for FREE for 10 years to appease a vocal minority that couldn't get their ducks in a row and are now crying HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION!! Forget it. I've already sent in my email to the union. You know where I stand, and yes, I will retire at 55.

box

[goingdown]

BBC News | HEALTH | Pilots 'have higher skin cancer risk' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/645113.stm)
Average age at death by Age at retirement - Swivel (http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/13840305)
Good luck with your retirement whatever you do!

[Pratt]

As you can see, I don't post much. However, I feel like I need to say something on this one. I agree with age 65, although it should not be given away to the company and that includes indirectly by the company losing a court case. This is one of the few bargaining tools that we actually have. So until talks on the issue with the company are completey exhausted the funding should not take place. Age 65, should not be decided by one individual taking the issue to court. This is without a doubt an issue that should be voted on by the entire membership. If the membership does vote for it, well that's the democratic process. Also, in my humble opinion, unless it is for incidents associated with operations or wrongful termination, (age 55 retirement aside as that is our contract) then all funding on an invidual basis should be voted on. Besides, I also feel there are much more pressing issues going on right now with degradation of our COS. Once again, I do support age 65, but not for free!!

[CYRILJGROOVE]

The General Committee asks you not to support the petition.
At a very basic level, the appeal the GC wishes to fund is to an Employment Tribunal. It concerns a basic employment right - the right to equal opportunities in the work place. In isolation it would be extraordinary if our Association did not support such a right. Of course this is to overlook the wider context - this case is certainly not isolated and its outcome may affect the opportunities of others, namely the ability of junior Officers to retain the Bypass Pay that is in our contract.

The Wider Context
At this stage I must reiterate the often stated goal of your General Committee. Our aim is to secure a fair deal on RA65; a deal that makes RA65 available to everybody and recognises that we have a contractual right to Bypass pay.
No doubt there is potential for division. It is reflected in the motivation of the petition. I very much hope that this early opportunity to discuss this with you and for you to consider the various angles will provide a way to air the concerns before they start affecting our unity and therefore our ability to tackle a much larger problem: the defence of the Cathay Career.I hope you will see the value in a united front facing the Company rather than divided fronts facing each other.

Yours sincerely
President
These quotes are from the HKAOA newsletter. If you support the divisive petetion it could only be seen as a lack of confidence in the the GC and the way they are tackling a very complicated issue.

[Jack57]

We absolutely must get this 10% gentlemen...

I for one am "over" the AOA's continous support of on base FO's and wannabe extendees at the EXPENSE of those who provide the most support....

10% then vote....democratic and fair...

Why do you think the guys supporting this don't want it to go that far?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Why do you think the guys supporting this don't want it to go that far?It is not the result of a vote on the motion that concerns me at all. The case will go ahead and a result will be given regardless of AOA funding. I believe the amount involved is about 30K GBP.

IT IS THE DIVISION THAT THE MOTION CREATES THAT CONCERNS ME. The selfishness of the motion astounds me. To my mind it is a list of shame if you add your name to the list. If we allow this motion to destroy the AOA then I would expect time to command to increase beyond any ones wildest dreams. The job would simply be not worth having

The company have proven they will employ Direct Entry Capts on Freighter and would grab the chance to employ retired guys and soldiers of fortune from all parts of the globe if there was no AOA to stop them. They will employ DEC on PAX aircraft, They will add to the already 27 COS versions we have and it will all benefit one side only.

The AOA have just stated they are going to put foward a proposal in the next couple of weeks to address the issues, yet we have complete and utter morons prepared to undermine all the good work of the GC who have been carefulling implementing a strategy to benefit the entire workforce and keep the union intact.

I would be strongly suggesting no one adds their name to the list of shame and encourages the proposer to withdraw the potentially union splitting motion.

Allow the GC to do their job.

[Jack57]

CJG

You do put forward some constructive points but once again - What happens to those FO's and SO's that planned their career progression only to see upgrades get blown out by years to satisfy those that wish to extend?

Some of us really do not wish to continue past 55.

I respect your right to extend but NOT at the expense of crew less junior to you.

I would be willing as a member to support you to the fullest, but ONLY when the AOA fully backs a fair and equitable deal for those disadvantaged.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

why can't we just vote on itBecause it just is not important, the case is going ahead regardless, the effect will be the same regardless........but you are splitting old against young, it is what you are doing to the AOA by having the motion in the first place it is divisory and illogically thought out with fatal flaws.

BECAUSE It is about a relevant as this proposal to the GC would be
Be it proposed that the GC directs CX to

Dump the male flight attendants. No one wanted them in the first place.

Replace all the female flight attendants with good-looking strippers! What the hell, they don't even serve food anymore, so what's the loss?

The strippers would at least triple the alcohol sales and get a 'party atmosphere' going in the cabin. And, of course, every businessman in this country would start flying again, hoping to see naked women.

Because of the tips, female flight attendants wouldn't need a salary, thus saving even more money. I suspect tips would be so good that we could charge the women for working the plane and have them kick back 20% of the tips, including lap dances and 'special services.'

This is definitely a win-win situation if we handle it right -- a golden opportunity to turn a liability into an asset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guarantee you I could get 10% of the membership signed sealed and delivered inside a week to direct the GC to negotiate away BPP in order to find a solution to RA65, that would turn old against young, split the union and be of no use to any one. Do not be shell shocked if someone actually does it!

[Ex Douglas Driver]

I guarantee you I could get 10% of the membership signed sealed and delivered inside a week to direct the GC to negotiate away BPP in order to find a solution to RA65, that would turn old against young, split the union and be of no use to any one. Do not be shell shocked if someone actually does it!

Really? Gaining the support of 10% of the membership only allows you to call for an EGM, at which you would propose your motion. THEN you would need more than 50% of the total financial members or more than 2/3rds of the votes cast to vote in support of it. Chances?

[buzzed_lightbeer]

My name is in,... let the democratic process work!

We have EGM's for minor constitutional changes yet a decision to fund/endorse a legal action which may have serious negative ramifications on some members is not put to a vote is not right

...on the subject of "it will go ahead any way" try that logic next time you wan't to get on a KMB bus for free, because" - you were going that way, anyway"

[CYRILJGROOVE]

that would turn old against young, split the union and be of no use to any one.Never Have Been And Never Interested In Calling For Such A Union Splitting Motion Just Trying To Emphasize The Stupidity And Futility Of This Ill Conceived Selfish Destructive Time Wasting Motion.

I Say Again Go Ahead With This And The Resultant Vote Does Not Matter, It Is The Fact That You Will Have Alienated The Senior Group, It Will Cause A Split, Weaken The AOA And Opened The Floodgates For CX To Employ DEC As They See Fit.

Drop The Motion, Let The Aoa Put It's Proposal To Cx While We Have A Cohesive Union.

[Dragon69]

The company have proven they will employ Direct Entry Capts on Freighter and would grab the chance to employ retired guys and soldiers of fortune from all parts of the globe if there was no AOA to stop them. They will employ DEC on PAX aircraft, They will add to the already 27 COS versions we have and it will all benefit one side only.

What a lame threat CYRIL :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

[oriental flyer]

Approaching 55 here is my take on it
We all approach each and every situation from our own perspective . A SO or an FO wants all Captains to retire at 55 .They get an upgrade and hopefully before they reach 55 RA 65 has been implemented. Great for them
From a Captains perspective: most of would like to continue for a few more years, or if we had plans to retire at 55 the recent stock market crash has put paid to those plans . I'm sure that I'm not the only one to see my portfolio an even shade of red.
So here is my perspective and this will produce some adverse comments I'm sure .
If the company offers me an extension I will take it my reasoning being
1 We didn't stand up in 99 and got railroaded
2 Where were the protests from the SO's when DEFO were brought in ?
3 Where were the protests from the FO's when DEC were introduced. I thought that one issue alone would have created mass protests but it didn't .

So if you are prepared to allow DEC from other airlines in without much complaint why are you getting so worked up about CX captains who extend ?
It simply doesn't add up, if you are that apathetic it indicates that you do not care enough to do anything but complain on this forum .

With regard to the BBP if you deserve it you should get it . But how does an FO who has failed his command, or is sitting on a base and has turned down a command in HKG justify BBP ? Again it is all how you look at it . For those receiving it good for you . Do you all deserve it? probably not ! but it is the one big stumbling block to introducing RA 65 for everyone .
Once again it is all a matter of perceptions , everyone has a different viewpoint dependent upon age and position . It's life, it ain't fair but it is better than death anyday

[Jack57]

OF

Are you kidding? Where on earth have you been? - Of course there has been protest from SO's and FO's regarding DEC's and DEFO's. Some of us however chose to do it the "proper" way i.e. letters of protest to the AOA rather than bleating on here.

There has also been much correspondence from the AOA regarding these issues thus I assume either you are not a member or you don't read your incommings.


Please spare me. If you want to take an extension then be a man and simply say so. Don't justify your reasons behind such drivel.

I respect your decision to extend however I find your reasoning unfathomable...

[ACMS]

Some of you guys expecting command in 8 to 10 years at CX ought to wake up and wake up FAST.

In my case it took 15 years as an F/O to finally make it to the left. I think you expect too much too quickly, the modern generation "I want it now" syndrome. Crickey in other real world Airlines time to command a wide body could be 15 to 20 years in good economic times. Get a reality grip please.

I had my command delayed by ASL you know, yes that's right. I wasn't too chuffed about it but it happened. That is unfortunatly LIFE.

Could someone PLEASE explain the total effect on career earnings for a junior officer to work an extra 5/10 years as Captain NC, does this offset his delayed upgrade or not?

And yes, 55 IS too young to retire, way to early. 60 would be ideal in my opinion.

[Jack57]

well with such a well thought argument as that.........

Comon ACMS - and I normally agree with you....

[CYRILJGROOVE]

I am going to try another tack on this issue. Could any younger member who supports the proposed motion please explain why you are so and your reasoning.

Given the AOA have said NOT to support it. Given that they have said they are looking after a fundamental right to equal opportunity for all members. Given that the case is not dependent on AOA funding. Given that they have said a proposal to address the issues is in the pipeline. Given that they have said they are looking at a fair deal for RA65. Given they recognise the division this motion potentially has. Given that it is going to distract the GC for the next 2 months or so

Is it because you think we cannot afford it, is it that you do not have confidence in the GC,

What is the fundamental reason some of you want to deny another member legal funding and

[boxjockey]

Because he is raising a court case on an issue that is outside the scope of his contract. If this was in regards to something the company was doing contrary to what is written in his contract, then so be it. I think that is what the union is doing with regard to SO BPP, FO BPP, etc. But to me, this is the same as the union bankrolling my court case against McDon's because I don't agree with the price of a Big Mac. If he wants to sue to work to 65, then let him do it out of his own pocket, not mine.

box

[PanZa-Lead]

there is alot of truth in what you are indicating. There will be a split in the AOA between the two groups.

ACMS I can't believe this but I agree with you..

[greg norman]

A thread has been established on the AOA Members forums. Please take a look.

[Jack57]

ACMS

The problem with your point is that you assume, like many others, that the officer in question WANTS to work past the age of 55.

SO here's what your proposing if I'm not mistaken.

I will need to work an extra "however-many" years to offset the money I lose in delayed command.

Why would anyone want that?

Please don't mistake my argument. I realise that 55 creeps up on all of us faster than most of us would like and I also agree that 55 is a young age to retire.

But do you not see that it only benefits the guys approaching 55? There is 0 benefit to the guy with the delayed command.

[raven11]

FRATRICIDE

Wow. Go to work for a couple of days, return home, log on to Pprune, and discover how low some people can sink. As a long time member of the AOA, it is beyond my comprehension that some members can actually consider signing their name to such a shameful petition.

Those who are should ask themselves what your parents, or your children, would think of you even considering such a thing. When faced with a test of your integrity, you decide that there is no immorality in self-interest. Forming a mob, is OK with you. What depth of anger must you feel to turn on your colleagues?

Who can rationalize committing such a contemptuous act? I still can’t rap my head around this. Let me see if I have this straight. The majority of the younger members of the AOA, who joined Cathay in the past several years, feel they can form a mob to push through an immoral agenda. To sign a petition to try and bully the AOA to seek, not a balanced deal that benefits everyone, but instead, a deal that favours only one segment. Their segment.

I actually feel sick to my stomach.

Go ahead boys and girls. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Have this vote, and see what Union remains afterward. It won’t be me quitting, it will you driving a stake through my heart!

Number Cruncher. Nice try at candy-coating this. I see it for what it is: Kane and Abel….Fratricide.

[Jack57]

Raven - At the moment the AOA is backing one segment only - YOUR SEGMENT, if you are pro 65 and pro the AOA's funding of this case.

Please don't tell me whats good for ALL. Only I as an individual member can decide whats good for me.

This issue is about the funding of a case outside the bounds of our contracts...

Cheers

[freightdoggiedog]

Raven, with all due respect, that was a bit melodramatic!! (By the way if you're going to accuse junior officers of fratricide, I think it's Cain ;)).

On a more serious note, I think an acrimonious approach will not help the aircrew body any: it will divide us further and let management get exactly what they want at our expense (as usual).

As a four-odd-year old member of the CX family (recently upgraded to pax F/O), even if I'm only in my thirties I can sympathise with captains who feel 55 has "snuck up" on them, or who have seen their finances take a horrible hit in the last year before retirement, due to the current crisis or personal circumstances. You're making good money, you're at the culminating point in your career, and you are (rightly) respected. I also appreciate that although I currently very much want to retire at 55, I may not be able to or may change my mind when I get there.

However (and notwithstanding all spin to the contrary), there is no escaping the fact that going from 55 to 65 overnight will really only be a huge advantage to those who are already EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO BE in their career, namely, pax captains, usually on a base. The further you move down the career ladder the more disadvantageous it becomes.

Even a pax captain in HK waiting for a base will find these are suddenly full for the next "X" years. A freighter captain waiting to transfer to the pax fleet will also find he is stuck on freight for much longer than anticipated. There is no telling how much longer pax F/Os will have to wait for a command if age 65 goes through, and let's not even start on what this will do to a freighter F/O's or an S/O's career prospects!

I feel that a fair compromise is feasible provided cooler thinking prevails. One where all captains are offered a later retirement age on good terms but which also offers some compensation to junior crew, perhaps involving more pay points accompanied by a solid raise at the higher pay points (to cover those years where one would have reasonably expected an upgrade), perhaps some benefits such as business class FOCs and first class duty travel after "X" years in CX or something.

What many junior crew fear is that if the case is won, CX will use it as an excuse to scrap bypass pay altogether. It also surrenders one of our few bargaining chips as was rightly pointed out.

What I want to hear from the AOA is what they are planning and why our fears are not justified. I may be sitting on the fence on this one, but vague promises of "proposals in the pipeline" are not enough to convince many F/Os I have been talking with to abstain from voting against something which in the first instance is patently damaging to their careers!

[Harbour Dweller]

There is a lot of emotion here on both sides so lets go back to the basics.

What is actually written in the COS.


Clause 36: The normal retirement age is 55.

Clause 10: In the case of retention of Captains beyond the Retirement Age, the next most senior FO will receive Command BPP.



Take careful note that Clause 10 does not mention directly the words "Age 55". The only words written are Retirement Age.

So CX simple changes Clause 36 to read RA65 and guess what.. No Command BPP will be payed until a Captain extends past RA65.

How is this fair deal for FO's & SO's?

[iceman50]

Jack / Box etc

If the retirement age changes guess what if you still want to retire at 55 then there is nothing stopping you. Those of us that want to work longer will not force you, nor will the company.

To give us a bit more of an understanding how long have you been in the company and how long have you been a member of the AOA. The same should be asked of the person putting forward the motion, how much have you all put into the association.

With all this talk of democracy and that everything needs to be voted on by the membership then there is no point in having a GC.

As for the "it's not fair the bases are full" well that has been the case for many years and it is a case of seniority. Of course the bases can now be filled by your compatriots and with bypass pay!:hmm:

[boxjockey]

Iceman and others,

Respectfully. If the age 65 is unilaterally imposed, which is likely if the outcome of the court case in the UK goes the way of the plaintiff, then it will make it MUCH harder for me to retire at 55. What about that can't you comprehend? You worked here for how many years, never lifting a finger to change the retirement age, even though most everywhere in the world observed an age 60 retirement. Now that you are presumably on your way out, you want to ride the gravy train for a few more years, to the serious detriment of the junior crew. Yet your band of merry fellows is saying we are the ones pushing a division in the union. It looks to me like we are simply trying to protect what we have now in the face of your opposition. I don't want this to be something that divides our union. I have been a member of ALPA for quite some time, and I understand the importance of a strong union. Just don't expect me and my junior colleagues to stand idly by and not protect our OWN careers. I truly hope that we can work something out that will benefit all, but as optimistic as I am, the past evidence and current climate don't inspire much confidence.

box

[Numero Crunchero]

ACMS,
to answer your question, based on past growth figures, with full receipt of BPP a junior guy only works for one year for free, with no BPP about three years for free - ie it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings of what would have been earnt by 55(with RA55) in NPV terms. Of course if this current tsunami ripples on for more than 12 months I will have to revise those figures(longer!)

[iceman50]

Box

Fine you have been a member of ALPA for a few years, not the AOA. What is it that you do not understand that some of us want to work past 55 but yet your apparent selfishness of wanting to retire at 55 forces me to go at an age I do not want to retire at. Plus why should I take up contract work to help you? How do you know we have not been trying to increase the retirment age. If you joined in the US then you will be happy to know that USAB were on a higher payscale than B scale in HK, so which gravy train are we talking about?

[ACMS]

NC..........with no BPP it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings.

THEREFORE from for every year beyond that they are earning cream? extra money they wouldn't have gotten if they'd retired at 55?

so possibly up to 9 years extra at captain pay ( assuming they stayed until 65 )

Correct?

[Alpor]

If RA65 is eventually put to a vote then the longer this takes then possibly the less likely it is to pass. The number of pilots on COS 08 is slowly increasing. Why would they vote in favour of it?

[JoeShmoe]

....all of us.

Blame the company and stop blaming each other.

They created the mess they can PAY to fix it.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

RAVEN 11 AND Joe Shmoe....well said. I would like to take to task the culprit motion. Blue = motion Green = Cyril

Dear Members of the HKAOA,
As you may be aware, the General Committee of the HKAOA has agreed to fund the legal costs of Captain MacIlroy in his appeal to the UK Employment Tribunal to have the retirement age increased for Cathay Pacific Pilots to 65 Years of age. Yes and the GC debated it long and hard, you and the those that support your motion obviously have No Confidence in the decision nor the GC.

Whilst I believe Captain MacIlroy is entitled to his day in court, I strongly oppose the HKAOA funding an action which is; He is entitled to the basic principal of equal opportunity and not to be age discriminated against, a fact publicly recognised by our representatives. It is an absolute disgrace that a few fellow union members seek to take away this fundamental benefit or right. Probably the second lowest act a pilot can do to his fellow pilot.

1/ In contravention to the very Conditions of Service that the AOA should seek to protect. The conditions of service that were signed some 2 decades ago have not kept pace with Age discrimination,and Sexual Discrimination laws just to name two. A few years back CX did not employ any female cockpit crew, times caught up with them and they did the morally correct thing. Many things with respect to racial and other types of discrimination have evolved in both a legal and moral sense since. You could actually smoke in the flight deck to when we joined but times changed! The COS cannot override the law and that is the crux of the appeal.

2/ Has the potential to adversely affect the career progression, earnings and basing opportunities of the vast majority of AOA members and Cathay Pacific pilots in general. That is a sweeping and untrue statement. A few posts back there was some pretty convincing numbers that career earnings are potentially significantly greater. I will expand on BPP in a later post however in General BPP will be potentially paid for life to the vast majority of those deemed unsuitable for command and genuine bypassed crew will not see a cent anyhow. Those in HKG may not see any BPP

Whilst any legal victory for Captain MacIlroy would initially only impact those pilots based in the UK the immediate effect would be ;

1/ Bypass pay for UK based First Officers would not be payable unless a captain is retained beyond 65 years of age. (currently 55 years) Maybe maybe not it is still in your COS

2/ The possibility that those UK based pilots working beyond 55 years would not generate bypass pay for pilots in Hong Kong and the other bases as it would be very unlikely that a court would inflict the financial burden of both RA65 and bypass pay on the company. Wake up it is pretty much going to those on a base with not intention of doing a command.

3/ Basing opportunities would reduce significantly due to older pilots remaining on the base due to RA 65.
Furthermore, should Captain MacIlroy succeed in his appeal, the legal precedence would certainly be used in other jurisdictions resulting in similar degradations to your Conditions of Service. Not being discriminated based on age is hardly a degradation to my COS.The moral obligation would be intense not to age discriminate, welcome news in this modern new world.

I am therefore calling for an online EGM to be held to vote on the following motion:
"Be it resolved that the membership of the HKAOA hereby authorises the funding of legal fees for Captain MacIlroy in his appeal to the UK Employment Tribunal."
The rules of the HKAOA require that the motion be worded in the "positive". I would therefore strongly recommend that you vote AGAINST the motion in order to protect you COS.

I would recommend that those that support this disgraceful divisive and selfishly motivated motion and whom add their name to the list of shame have a good hard think about it. It is simply a fact the case will proceed with or without the AOA funding and all of the above is likely in any event. It is the trail of destruction you create in the interim that is of greater concern. Do the honourable thing and withdraw it at the very least until you have seen the AOA proposal to sort the mess out.

[tiger321]

I have to laugh at all the posters who bleet on about how dishonourable this whole motion is, etc, etc.

What happened to honouring a contract? We all entered a contract that we should honour. Be it A scale, B scale, Cos 08 or any of the 27 or so contracts out there - you signed it because you were happy with it.

Now honour it.

What isn't getting much of a mention is that you can still work at CX beyond 55. It might not suit you to relocate to Hong Kong or fly a freighter on a lower salary but you have the option.

I'm not against RA65, as long as those crews getting the short end of the wedge are compensated.

[tiger321]

Everyone seems to think that the case will be heard whether it is funded by the union or not.
My question therefore is who will pay for the legal proceedings if the AOA don't?

[Ex Douglas Driver]

Cyril

Was the original court case sanctioned (but not funded) by the AOA - I don't remember seeing mention made of it?

When will the appeal be heard? I hope the GC has sufficient time to put their "fair deal for all" proposal to members and the company. This will at least get the negotiation underway, and we then have the option to use the legal appeal as a lever to get what we all want.

I find it a bit rich for you to try and claim the moral high-ground over this unilateral legal approach when it appears this was NOT part of the AOA's ongoing attempt at negotiating a fair deal on RA65 for all. This was a legal challenge by an individual that lost (most likely wrongly). Now the AOA has agreed to fund the appeal, the legal case is now being championed by some as the AOA's collective solution to RA65. It wasn't and it's not - the UK legal appeal is only a small part of trying to sort out the mess that is differing retirement ages over multiple contracts and jurisdictions.

[Jack57]

List of Shame???

Disgusting!!! With that kind of attitude I'm not surprised that most gents I've talked to the last few days are extremely PRO this motion.

I wonder how many of you gents were pushing for 55 when flying the right seat. Not many I'm sure.

If you want to use that tone then be my guest. Some will simply dig their heels in even more.

You speak about whats fair for all but all you do is preach what's good for you.

I have tried to see both sides of the equation but I for one am done now.

When this motion goes to vote we will vote on the bounds of our contract. You made it impossible to do anything else!!

Out

[bobrun]

it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings of what would have been earnt by 55(with RA55)

Knowing that statistically many will lose their medical past 60, this isn't good news. How many will have the health to fly long hauls in their 60s I wonder. Although there's a potential for addtionnal earnings, there's also a real potential of not being able to fly up to 65 for many. :ooh:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Yes a list of shame it is. At the end of the day the list of shame will probably mirror the list of those receiving BPP and not willing to move off the base or those HKG pilots deluding themselves that they will get BPP. The proposer of the motion is on a base in BNE, does he intend to come back to HKG or is he going try and pocket the money and not do the job.

Management are telling line crews that on one fleet alone, of the 45 receiving BPP 43 are deemed unsuitable for command. That is a system truley flawed and not looking after those actually by passed.

What I am preaching to you to let the AOA put its proposal foward, they have stated clearly they want a fair settlement.

Go ahead boys and girls. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Have this vote, and see what Union remains afterward. It won’t be me quitting, it will you driving a stake through my heart! Raven my friend, they a driving a stake in your back

[rtforu]

mmm... Retirement age 65, additional 10 years of long haul statistically puts one dead at 68-72. That gives a guy 3 to 7 years of life to live work free. Of course part of that will be spent in treatment trying to fight some horrible disease that's got you by the balls. Nope, age 55 is very soon for me and I'm out of here. Life is short, don't forget it!!

[JohnLemon]

One should not fear democracy!

A motion like the one brought forward is not a bad thing like some try to make us believe.
Those who oppose it have obviously already lost the confidence in the GC to communicate their decision to help funding the appeal to the rest of the membership.
With the right explanation and more importantly actually outlining how a fair deal for everyone might look like the motion might pass, which in return gives a solid mandate to the GC to continue their path.

btw.: I find it irritating that first we ask the younger generation to join the AOA but than tell them to shut up and don't voice their opinions?

[Numero Crunchero]

ACMS you are technically correct. Of course, if we simply made all FO/SOs do 92.4credit hours/month(10% more work) for 5% more pay between now and their upgrades they will also be better off as they will have earnt 5% more - and they will have the extra few years as an FO to enjoy the extra 5%.

It depends on whether your aim is to earn as much money as possible in life, have a long retirement or some combination thereof. If the sole aim is money, then everyone is better off with RA65. If the aim is retirement, then everyone is worse off with RA65. If the aim is some compromise of the two, then current CNs are better off with RA65 and FO/SOs are worse off.

What complicates the issue is that there are many who want/need to work to 65 even though they are FO/SOs, and many others that want to earn as much as possible as soon as possible and then leave. RA65 will not suit the latter group.


There are currently 45 FOs on bases senior to the most junior CN. I would say roughly 10 of those are Cat D. Some of the other based FOs are Cat B/C. I have met quite a few FOs in HK who are in receipt of BPP. They are willing and able to do a course but have been found Cat B/C. So to suggest all 55 FOs on BPP are happy go lucky based guys with no intention of doing a command is stretching the truth.

Whilst on BPP you receive CN1 salary - no increments are ever applied. So the loss of career earnings for someone who wants to receive BPP on a base rather than take a command is huge. And just think of the benefit that provides to more junior FOs who are willing to take a command in HKG! If all those pesky based FOs rushed back and did a HK command then all other more junior FOs would have their commands delayed!

According to the definition of BPP only Cat D are not entitled. So yes it might be true that up to 43 recipients of BPP are currently 'unsuitable' for command but there are many current CNs who were made Cat B or C, ie 'unsuitable', in the last few years before ultimately passing their commands. Are we that Darwinian now to deny BPP on seniority? To the victor go the spoils!?


The initiator of this motion is an ex GC member who spent countless hours working/negotiating on our behalf. Being ex GC he understands the rules and regulations and is simply putting into motion what many members want to happen but did not have the knowledge or wherewithal to carry out themselves. Whether you agree with him or not, he is acting in what he thinks is the best interests of the membership!

[boxjockey]

Thank you very much NC, very well put. Let the democratic system work. If there are enough people to support the motion, then it will pass and the funding will continue. If there isn't enough support, then it should be abandoned.

box

[Jack57]

JohnL, Numero and Box

Finally some constructive and well thought posts....

[Liam Gallagher]

You asked yesterday for a "younger member" to explain their position.

Whilst I am not sure I would count myself as a "younger member" I support the idea of vote. The GC is empowered and entrusted to make decisions on the way the AOA is run and does so on a daily basis without the need to run to the membership seeking its expressed approval for every decision. No doubt they do so using some basic principles and I shall highlight two such principles.

1. Does the proposal represent value and can the AOA afford it?
2. Is the proposal in line with AOA principles and policy?

This is an Appeal, because your arguments have already been rebuffed once, it is extremely risky. Litigation is expensive and no doubt an Appeal is even more expensive as it is a higher Court, takes more time and presumably a higher grade of Barrister/legal team. Equally, should you lose, you pay the other sides costs and those costs will be greater. The decision to fund this Appeal will draw funds from not only this year, but years to come. I assume the GC believes it is affordable and represents value, however the membership must be made aware of this considerable commitment.

On the second point. The GC must support the aim of litigation. The AOA's policy must be that age 55 is discriminatory and that RA should be 65 or unlimited (subject to medical). As another writer pointed out, because of the construction of the COS, BPP is linked to the phrase " retirement age"; not "age 55", therefore BPP will no longer be paid. Therefore in a nutshell; the AOA's policy is "RA 65, with no BPP".

I think this shift in policy will come as news to most members and it is for this reason a vote should be held.

As an aside, if the GC really wants RA 65 with no BPP why did they emphatically turn down the deal of Aug 07 (with the associated pay rises). To cut to the chase, if the GC really believes in Charlie's Appeal; get PW to walk upstairs to Nicks office and sign a deal putting us all on the failed COS07(without the associated pay rises:ugh:) .... saves everyone a lot of time and money....

[fire wall]

Liam, your last post is a falsification.
The AOA's policy is age 65 with compensation for all junior officers affected with respect BPP.
It has been stated often enough but perhaps you have not been receiving the newsletters. Could it be that you do not pay subs?
There has been NO shift in policy as you state. Pure falsification.
If you want a say in directing the course of AOA policy then join up, pay your subs and send in a letter for all to read.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

From reading the AOA missives they say they are supporting a fair and reasonable RA65 agreement and that the company needs to recognise there is contractual BPP in some of the crews COS. I have been told the total cost iof the appeal is around 30K GPB. Furthermore the AOA is about to present a proposal to the company seeking to clear up this mess. My argument is that it is not the time to side track the GC on an issue that is not overly expensive, nor is the funding crucial to the case. The case will go ahead. The impact will be the same regardless. I for one will offer Charlie financial assistance should the funding be pulled. Remember the President has stated it would be an extra ordinary circumstance for our union not to subscribe to the equal opportunity principle for our members.

What particularily frustrates me is that emotion is running so high in the angry younger group they want to cut off affordable funding obviously hoping that the case will stall or fail to benefit their own position.The mob and I mean mob in the true sense of the word who are seeking this motion do not appear to comprehend that there is two ends of the spectrum in our membership. From some comments it seems they have not read or comprehended the AOA's very reasonable position, taking into account the both older and younger membership positions.

Furthermore they choose to ignore recent social and moral shifts in discrimination and continue to subscibe to continuing age discrimination to further their own gains. Scroll thru and read them it is amazing. The old chestnut of you signed it so thats it is spread out thru the thread. Charlie and I signed the COS nearlly 2 decades ago, much has changed since.

It is a fact that BPP is not the most supported aspect of out COS by many as it is the blocker to RA65 being implemented. It is going to a group of crew that in general are not actually being by passed. How would the younger members feel if an EGM was called to show full support for BPP and the motion did not pass. Could we then proceed to negotiate it away. and please this is for example only I do not subscribe to this!

This is what the current motion is asking for, it is asking to take away funding (by voting against the motion) for a very good member of the AOA and I do find that apalling. I also support a negotiated settlement taking into account both ends of the spectrums concerns. The GC are my reps and I want them to do their job without this major unnecessary distraction

The motion has no value to the membership it is a lose lose situation. Try and talk some commonsense to these members.

[Hiro Nakimura]

You have one group of guys that have spent 15-30 years here, much of that as captains, watching 100s of their more senior colleagues forced to go at 55. You got your commands fast because of that. Meanwhile in almost every other industry guys were able to work until 60, 65, 70!

You have another group of guys, well over a 1000, who joined cathay in the last decade expecting a command inside a decade because the practice of everyone leaving at 55 was continuing.

Now the group that has benefited for 5,10, 15,20, 25? years of being captains, thanks to all those other guys being forced out too young at 55, is now complaining that the 1000 odd guys that joined expecting a quick command are getting uppity because they have the audacity to want compensation for the contract being changed midstream!

So, just so we are clear, most of you captains have spent decades here watching guys being forced to leave at 55. You have spent decades working with a 55 year termination date and now suddenly its a human rights issue? Puh-lease! At what point in your first 2 decades here did you decide it was a human rights issue?

And those who have joined in the last decade on the premise of captains retiring at 55 have had the rug pulled out from under them by this push to 65. So in effect the current generation of captains are doing the same to FOs today as ASL did to FOs a decade ago! Of course the difference is managment introduced ASL in the 90s whereas it is the our own pilots pushing for 65 now! Is there a shame file for that too cyril?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

21 Years as an FO, 10.5 in CX as an FO before command in seniority , Initially 72 hour contract then 84, initially 8 weeks leave then 6, Then ASL lost 5 years, No By Pass Pay or compensation could have taken a command out of seniority but waited my turn. Sat back and watched folks with 15 years less senior take B744 commands, was 30-40 pilots a year on extensions no BPP.....no sport no shame at all, no one guaranteed time to command I thought it was going to be 3 years like the Capt I did the course with but the COS kept changing, NEVER HAD A COS TELLING ME WHEN I would get a command, and never screwed my fellow pilot. Most senior guys were Check and Training and many stayed on and a lot took freighters, actually very few left at 55, but hey lets just say 100's left because it sounds convincing.

And the world changed a little in the mean time, and now new joiners can work to 65. Tell me Hiro you have a choice sign a legally binding document saying you will leave at 55 and you can have BPP or choose No BPP and stay as long as you like. The CP on a certain fleet is asking the Question and no one has offered to sign the paper.

OH yes Hiro, when they left at 55 that was in the contract for everbody but these days If you come from OASIS or BA or off the street you can go to 65. Somehow you do not want that equal opportunity available to everyone that is the big difference.

Looks like all aboad the ship of shame for you Hiro

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Oh yes and by the way have any of you mental giants out there figured out why CX is using all sorts of forums and contacts to talk about BPP and the fact who is getting it and their suitability. Have you figured out why they are asking you if you would sign up to 65 and sign away BPP or if you would stick with 55 and BPP. Been in this outfit for a while and a familiar smell is in the air. Wondered why the company is just sucking it all up at the moment and staying quiet.

CX is aware that the motion has divided the old and young members and they will pounce . They know of the lack of overall support for BPP going to those not bypassed. They know what you have told them about BPP. They know that both legal and moral issues are catching up with them. Do you know you have just handed the DFO a virtually no cost option to sort this mess out. I reckon I could almost draft the DFO's letter. You younger ones are going to wonder how you stuffed this up and come out with no compensation for BPP, you are going to have been totally outsmarted by CX and you know what, on the basis of your recent actions you deserve what is about to come.

Come on Mr Management draft the DFO's letter, I bet you are spot on.

Not only the ship of shame, you had better get a ticket on the ship of fools also

[Kitsune]

Plus of course the extremely short time to a widebody command was due to airline EXPANSION......... :rolleyes:

[raven11]

Hiro,

Why haven’t you and some of your mates taken the time to read this thread? Are you so angry that you just skip to the end to post your venom? In your last few posts you keep repeating questions that have been answered, I thought quite clearly, in earlier posts.

For instance you ask why we didn’t do something about age 55 years ago. Your spin is always the same: we’re selfish, we’ve been molly-coddled with special treatment, etc, etc, etc.

Well, about 50 posts ago, I said:


“Why didn’t we older blokes say something 10 years ago? Well, because…it wasn’t an option then. There was ONE common COS for all pilots. The rules were clear and inviolate! Everyone had a good provident fund, good pay and conditions. Nobody was allowed to stay beyond 55. There was only the one set of rules.

The rules also said junior crew were not allowed to jump seniority and do an early freighter command. Those of us, who were here then, can remember that the notion of jumping your mates in the Command queue was treated as nothing short of Blasphemy. It was forbidden by the Union, and those that did were shunned. ASL and early commands had a significant impact on many of us who ultimately had our Commands delayed for years (five years for me) with no bypass pay or compensation. If you weren’t here, then try to imagine telling your best mate you were going to jump him in the command queue. Friendships were ruined. Remember?

But undeniably, the game was beginning to change, whether we wanted to believe it or not.

Over the next 10 years or so, dozens of different COS and conditions evolved. To the point where today, quite frankly, it’s a mess! Today there are no longer one set of rules, but rather many options available for both the younger crew and older crew that were not available 10 years ago. These changes have mostly been for the junior crews, but for several years now, the older crew have been watching as large numbers continue to work beyond 55.

So naturally, given the wide range of packages out there, everyone examines his/her personal circumstances in that context. Should I take an early Command, should I work beyond 55, should I go on a base, take a joker, resign and rejoin on COS 08 so I can take a base, what are your conditions, what are my conditions, what are his conditions, etc, etc, etc. It’s a mess!

Many younger pilots have been all over the map while exploring different COS and career options within Cathay, because things have changed, industrial relations have soured, and different options are now commonplace. So, given the history, is it really fair for you same people, who have personally explored different options to which you joined on, disparage me and my mates nearing 55 for exploring the options open to us? Let’s be fair, honest, and consistent here.

What we need is a common set of conditions, like we used to have. By any moral standard, the Company must be convinced that a common set of working conditions is necessary for a stable and happy work force to exist. Otherwise, there will be an ultimate cost. Until then, until the AOA can sit down with the Company and hammer a deal out, well… we are all just trying to do what’s best for our families and us.”

So, Hiro, Puh-lease. You know, like, don’t keep repeating a question that’s been answered already. Go ahead, have your petition, destroy the Union, then…..well, even if you win you lose.

Why? Because quite frankly, I’ve spoken to quite a number of my mates, who are fed up with the shortsightedness of our younger colleagues. What you’re forgetting is that we’ve been here before. We’ve seen the cuts and many changing conditions. You haven’t.

What you don’t realize, or are not thinking through, is that after the vote, after the Union collapses, the Company will still extend us anyway. That’s why this “angle of yours” is shortsighted. Instead of presenting a united front, your advocating dismemberment. But the people you want to hurt will come out OK, because the Company will still extend the Captains. How’s that for poetic justice?

And you….well, lets just say you might grow to regret your myopia.

[raven11]

Number Cruncher.

Mate, you've annunciated the loss of career earnings our junior members will suffer if age 65 goes through. But for the benefit of those who joined in the last nine years or so, would you mind putting a number on the loss of pay suffered by those in our demographic from such minor setbacks as ASL delaying our commands by five years on average, with no BPP. Don't forget to include the loss of our potential salary increments as Captains. And while your at it, can you please tack on the loss to our career earnings following the salary cutbacks in 99?

Full disclosure for our junior members please, so that they can make a more informed decision as to their petition.

[Numero Crunchero]

raven,
good post. You are nearly;-) always very logical and deductive.

Lost career earnings.
I have not actually worked out an exact figure because, frankly, it would upset me to know how much I thought I was going to earn rather than what I do. But here are a few facts that might put it into perspective.

The share options I got would have had to rise to $35-40 to compensate me for the paycuts - I sold mine around $10-11 due to personal circumstances back when they first vested. So I made a (taxable) profit of $2.5-$3.5 per share vs the necessary $27-32 required to fully compensate my paycuts!

I can't remember if it was the company and/or the AOA but we were told that the options were to cover 10 years of payloss as B scales would have caught up to A scales by then. Here we are 10 years later with a 20% gap between the scales!

Our A scale salaries are around 1993 levels. Given the double digit payrises enjoyed in the 80s it was a bit of a culture shock to have stagnant pay, and then paycuts.

Not many people start work with a company and expect to be on the same pay scales 16 years later!


So yes A scale have suffered huge loss and opportunity costs. I don't like to focus on that though as we still earn and have earnt more than B scalers over any comparable time frame. Its hard to garner sympathy with the argument that you expected 8 pieces of pizza and ended up with 6 when newer joiners can only expect up to 4 pieces!

kitsune,
Since I joined CX I have moved up about 600-700 slots on the seniority list. If we had RA65 the day I joined, I would have moved somewhere around 100-300 slots. My command would have been in the last year or two instead of 7 years ago. I don't know/have the data/demographics of previous employees and of course I have made two HUGE assumptions - no one leaves before 65 and no one loses their medical.
So my point it is that of course RA65 is going to have a major impact and we need to be mindful/considerate of the consequence that will have on future career progression. If there is no expansion and RA65 comes in then we could have up to a decade with no upgrades.


As I have said before, this is a difficult issue. I think both 'sides' have very valid arguments. Personally I am glad that decisions on issues like this are made democratically - whether that be a committee of 20 or a membership of over 1400. It has been good to read some logical arguments on this thread, along with the usual hysteria, catastrophising and apportionment of blame!

[CYRILJGROOVE]

btw.: I find it irritating that first we ask the younger generation to join the AOA but than tell them to shut up and don't voice their opinions?You don't join a union then turn on your own members, you let the leadership do it's job.

[mephisto88]

Jeez, you go away on two weeks leave and come back to find another 6 pages of comment! Whilst I knew it was an issue that most people had a firm view in one direction or another, I didn't realize it would be quite such a polarizing and divisive issue when I posted the 1st comment. I guess I misjudged that as much as the GC misjudged the mood of the membership, according to comments here anyway, although if the EGM aspect doesnt get the 10% support, the GC obviously did get it right.

As a member, I have the utmost respect for the GC and those individuals who have selflessly given up their time to help us. I feel sure that that by and large they genuinely feel that they are doing what's best for us.

However is it right that we question their decisions in general and this funding decision in particular?

Clearly when the office needs a new paper clip, the staff need to be able to buy it without question. However, with aspects of a larger magnitude, such as when discussions about new COS have culminated in probably another shonky company offer, not only would the merits be discussed amongst the GC, but we would then receive their suggestions of wether to vote for or against.
We then vote, any democratic vote is upheld (assuming we don't have a re-run of the CoS04 2nd vote debacle), and we move forward on the basis of such a vote. Life is easy when such clear opposite ends of the spectrum are so much easier to quantify.

Unfortunately, this appeal funding seems to have beeen perceived to be in the grey area in the middle, where it fell to the GC to debate and decide what to do, and it must have been viewed as sufficiently unremarkable as the GC made their decision without reference to the membership.

Could anybody really think they did it to be deliberately devisive - obviously not, but therein may give junior members cause for thought that the demographics of the GC may not be evenly representative of the junior crew.
Nobody could deny that it is a little top heavy, and for many aspects in dealing with company issues, that could well be appropriate. But as this thread perhaps indicates, the major percentage of the FO/SO proportion of the company, do not seem to favour the approach taken by the GC on this issue. In the future, perhaps more of our FO's and SO's would care to stand for election so that when GC dabate time comes around, they can add the viewpoints of their peers, who may have another 30 yrs of indentured service left, to any GC discussion or vote.

That many here have said it will break the union and cause untold ructions, could be pure scaremongering. People have also said that by starting the EGM motion, that this will be the cause of a divisive split.
Well may I suggest IMHO that the start of any such split occured when the GC chose to agree to give said funding. That it has happened is history, but we as a membership now have to sort out the situation that's subsequently evolved.

What we now have the hard task of deciding, is firstly, wether to write to the AOA to say yes go ahead with the EGM, and secondly, if 144 members have done so, the even harder decision to vote for/against funding. Either vote may have significant ramifications for both oldies like me, young folks I fly with, and not least the GC.

It maybe a pipe dream, but I would still dearly like to see a NRA negotiation with the company, where the AOA and company agree to a change to NRA for all crew, where financial and command/upgrade disadvantages are compensated or kept to a minimum, which as always may require a compromise on both sides. However the financial climate and the timescale of this case may have unfortunately put that on the back burner.

So finally, could I implore people on both sides to try hard and put themselves in the other persons shoes for a while, to see their viewpoint as clearly as possibly, and then having sat on their hands for a time consider the long reaching effects of your vote. Definately not a time for a knee jerk vote, as this EGM really does not seem to have any good options, just a couple of bad ones which may see significant numbers of losers on one side and significant bad feeling on the other side.

Let the democratic process begin..........

[raven11]

Number Cruncher

Likewise to you my friend. I always enjoy and appreciate the hard work you put into your posts. I know we all do.

But NC, really, to use your analogy, is it OK now for the younger guys to vote on taking the whole pizza....all eight pieces? While they cast their older colleagues to the wind without so much as a breadstick? This would be shameful!

Or, next time we go out for drinks, is it OK to let one bloke buy rounds all night, then turn our backs on him, force him out, and order a round just for ourselves? This too would be shameful!

A united front, and a balanced, fair agreement is what we all need. What we don't need, now that AOA membership numbers are creeping up again, is a form of democratic tyranny, where the current majority forms a mob to protect only their interests.

Number Cruncher, as a long time member, like me, you know what fragmenting the AOA in the past has resulted in. How many times have I heard the argument that we should have not allowed B scale to occur in 93. That we, the majority then, should not have allowed the B scale implementation. We should have considered the long term cause and effect.

In retrospect, I think we all knew what the effect would be, but we just kept our heads down and hoped for the best as B scale was only implemented on the new joiners. Then we ALL watched as it occurred again, and again, and again, with C, D, and O scales.

How many people, who today advocate this shameful petition, also think it was wrong that B scale was allowed to occur by the then AOA? How about you NC? I've heard this point a million times! Is it fair then, or smart, for the current majority, now that the shoe is on the other foot, to do essentially the same thing? Or is it short sighted and hypocritical?

[boxjockey]

Mephisto88,

That was by far the best thought out, and most eloquently written post on this thread. Thank you very much for your contribution. I think we all want an agreement, through negotiation, to resolve this issue. My fear, and maybe it is just that, is if this appeal is indeed won, then the company will simply unilaterally change the retirement age in ALL of our contracts. Now there is no compensation for the junior crew and a windfall for those of you who have been here for 12+ years. I think most are simply looking for a fair compromise that helps us all. I want to retire at 55, just show me how I can do it, regardless of seat held, with the same comfort I am planning with my current contract. If anyone can do that, then you will have my 100% support!!

box :)

[Apple Tree Yard]

..the simple truth of the matter is, whether it's next week, next year, or in 5years time, CX will be age 65, like nearly every other airline in the world. The hypocrisy in the positions taken here is dripping with self-interest. The reality is every FO/SO does not want 65....UNTIL they themselves are Captains...then it will be something they magically start supporting with all their might. In the end, CX will manouver and manipulate to ensure that 65 is established for ALL employees, BBP is a dead issue, and we all move onto other concerns and worries. Doubt this?...well, then you just haven't been here long enough....:ok:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

So finally, could I implore people on both sides to try hard and put themselves in the other persons shoes for a while, to see their viewpoint as clearly as possibly, and then having sat on their hands for a time consider the long reaching effects of your vote. Definitely not a time for a knee jerk vote, as this EGM really does not seem to have any good options, just a couple of bad ones which may see significant numbers of losers on one side and significant bad feeling on the other side.

Let the democratic process begin.......... I been saying the same thing for ages and totally agree now is not the time for a vote. However as far a democracy goes this vote would be a far from democracy as you could get. There are 938 Captains, 1218 FO's and 344 SO with only a minor percentage over 50+. The numbers are simply stacked against those approaching retirement. Elements of the membership has demonstrated its inability for a balanced viewpoint approach .

The current proposal is as disgraceful as a motion which would attempt get the Capts and FO ganging up against the SO's and taking away something from them and splitting it up between them. The motion is immoral and someone need to talk sense to the proposer and get him to withdraw it.

As an aside the copy of the COS I have states in para 10.4 that "An officer who has declined to undertake command training will not be eligible for command by pass pay" Granted it is dated July 1999 and may not be current, but it clearly demonstrated one thing, that is the COS is not set in stone and the companies interpretation on BPP does change. Don't plan your mortgage on it!

[Numero Crunchero]

Hi raven, continuing on with the pizza analogy, we have already had 6 pieces - that can't be taken away. Now we are asking to work longer for 2 more pieces to make up for the 8 pieces we expected, but didn't get thanks to ASL/paycuts etc. But getting those two pieces will cost half/quarter of a slice for our juniors, until they are 55. Yes they can stay longer and get more pizza too, but what if their plan was to leave at 55 - now they HAVE to stay longer to make up the half/quarter piece they lost! Them staying on longer will cause the following generation of CX pilots to earn less in a given time than their predeccesors - so the cycle will continue! So I don't like trying to argue the principle of RA65 from an 'earnings shortfall' point of view!

We already have de facto RA65 - we have extendees entrapped in C+Ting whether they want to be or not, others on the freighter and now a whole new group of CNs with less than 13months seniority who have RA65 enshrined in their contracts. Its ironic that we will have ex BA DECs working here long after those of us on RA55 are forced to leave, or suffer the indignity of annual company renewable contracts! Concurrently we have many people receiving BPP that many feel are undeserving of it, but which is not really relevant to the issue. If we had RA65 and full BPP there could be 100s of FOs on BPP in a few years so the few considered 'undeserving' of BPP will be in a minority.

I suspect the appeal will go ahead, AOA funded or not, so the issue is really should the AOA be funding it. If we read too much into the issue and make it an 'us or them' issue then yes it will be divisive...but only because we choose it to be divisive. I have spoken to people for and against the funding - they all have good grounds and arguments for their views, and none of them are acting in a purely selfish manner. I just hope that if it comes to a general vote that regardless of the outcome, we realise we are all on the same team, even if we don't always want to eat the same pizza;-)

[SFGDOG]

One could say "it looks like it's on for young and old.":}

[quadspeed]

Look, we all signed a legally binding contract stating that we'd work until 55. We (the AOA) are doing our damnest to keep the company in line, but this circus is making a mockery of it.

To those of you who want to work past 55, quit the AOA and renegotiate your own contract with the company. There are so many variants out there already, it can't make much difference to CX.

The only way forward from this point is for the AOA to make a hard stance against any extensions at all. With no extensions offered, this court case wouldn't even exist. It would allow younger guys to move into check and training, and the seniority list would get moving again.

Then....if the company wants to negotiate on RA65, then welcome to the table. .... for collective bargaining for all CoS-99s. One of the goals of any such agreement should be the retention of current payscale from 55 to 65; precisely what the AOA is backing in this particular case.

The company is conducting another great goat-fu(k, and we're busy digging our own graves.

[Fly747]

Sorry quad, we didn't all sign to 55, KA and Oasis DECs have got a contract to 65.
The appeal is actually about the jurisdiction of a UK industrial tribunal, not the RA itself, once it is established that the UK courts can rule on CXUK pilots' retirement age then there can only be one outcome. It doesn't matter what the contract says it cannot enforce something that is illegal, i.e. age discrimination.
It also doesn't matter who votes on what AoA wise as I expect that the case will still be heard.

[Loopdeloop]

ATY - I heard that said over 5 years ago and the timeline has now expired. I don't doubt that it will come eventually but it's a brave man that puts a definitive timeline on this so confidently.

Cyril - I can't be made to sign a waiver. My legally binding contract says NRA 55 and BPP iaw the terms in the CoS. Unfortunately the only answer to this will probably only be found in a court, with the main question for us being "who funds it?"
Also, the term "complete selfish morons" adds nothing to a civilized debate!

[quadspeed]

Sorry quad, we didn't all sign to 55, KA and Oasis DECs have got a contract to 65.Fly747

Precisely. Which is why I stated that the collective bargaining on this issue applies to the CoS-99 contracts. A

Anyone hired after 31.12.07 is on RA65 already; no need for further negotiations there. They've already made their deal.

But we haven't.

[Harbour Dweller]

CYRILJGROOVE,

Firstly, I have read all of your posts & have kept an open mind on your side of the discussion until now.

RA65 for all that want it , suits all Captains. FO's Choice 1 RA65 no BPP Choice 2 55 and BPP with slightly changed eligibility.

I thought you were preaching you wanted a fair deal for all. Your suggestion above doesn't seem to indicate this.

What you suggest is that you should have the opportunity of working to age 65 on full A scale whilst if junior crew wish to do so there should be no compensation for a delayed career & loss of earnings.

It is clear that Captains, like yourself, stand to gain the most whilst FO's & SO's will stand to lose the most.

I for one will offer Charlie financial assistance should the funding be pulled.

Of course you will but why?

As you question the morality of younger crew & their thoughts I ask you, is your support of this appeal out of self interest or for the good of ALL CX pilots?



quadspeed,

The only way forward from this point is for the AOA to make a hard stance against any extensions at all. With no extensions offered, this court case wouldn't even exist. It would allow younger guys to move into check and training, and the seniority list would get moving again.

Then....if the company wants to negotiate on RA65, then welcome to the table. .... for collective bargaining for all CoS-99s. One of the goals of any such agreement should be the retention of current payscale from 55 to 65; precisely what the AOA is backing in this particular case.

Great to see some fresh input into the discussion.

Your ideas certainly have merit. I hope this is a path the AOA considers as it holds benefits for both sides.

[Kitsune]

The HKAOA that bottled it when 49 (51) of it's members were sacked out of hand is going to take a 'hard stance' on extensions....... yeah, right!! :cool:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

I have been preaching a fair deal for all what I was saying is the company have been asking some very probing questions in fleet forums etc and have asked a fair few crew what they would do in certain scenarios. The options suggested by CX was
1 present deal age 55 and BPP or
2 RA65 and no BPP All have answered 2.
My point is let the AOA negotiate for you but every day we delay the imposition of the option of a choice having to be made is increasing.

For those of us who have been around a while a very familiar feeling is in the air. Have you heard of COSAP 94, COS99 Sign or be fired, 49's, RP 01 RP04 RP07 shortly RP09.

When CX probes about BPP and quote numbers of crew unsuitable for command receiving BPP and people freely tell them they would take 65 and waive BPP you can be sure of some thing is in the pipeline and a surprise in your mailbox.

This motion, as distinct from the case, is actually of little relevance inso far of the end game however it is causing a major distraction for the GC to get moving along with their proposal. The fact that BPP is in the COS is a barganing chip but it is of little value if members tell CX they would waive it for RA65. Negotiate something before it is not worth anything, withdraw the motion and get on with it!. It may evolve that the case may not need to proceed at all if a fair agreement was reached.

Inso far as the moron statements, point taken and I have edited them and a few others I said whilst particularly frustrated, they are result of a feeling of betrayel by the proposers of the motion that they feel that one section of the membership is not worthy of being afforded the basic principal of equal opportunity. I like Raven feel I have been stabbed in the Back and continually hearing "you signed a contract to 55" despite all of the considered responses and explanations is falling on deaf ears. I accept the criticism on that point and it probably did detract from the points I was making.

Of course you will but why?Charlie and everyone on RA55 are being age discriminated against, they have to stop working at 55 yet many other pilots in the same company can go to 65, it goes far deeper than simply the contract you signed. (sign or be fired I might add).

[SFGDOG]

Does anybody really think in the current downturn that CX has any plans to impose RA65? For them, the best plan is to see off all the extendee's and as many retiree's as possible, especially as they are typically the most expensive crew resources in the company, in order to reduce crew numbers. This also solves the BPP issue for CX as well. Any thoughts otherwise is wishfill thinking. The place is ruled by the bean counters. We are more likely to see the reintroduction of VSS than RA65.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Don't recall seeing any allowance for downturns in age discrimination legislation. Would it not make sense to keep all court cases going to apply pressure from both ends of the workforce to force to CX to the table to sort out the mess once and for all. If there is going to be BPP, should it go to those being by passed or are you happy for it to continue to go to those on a base or those that have not passed the course. Do you want to continue to have DEC on the freighter, they are taking away a significant amount of commands that should be going to the Fo's who have waited their turn. Who is going to be let go if the downturn continues? , the 2 month DEC Capt or the 6 month SO or the 3 month DEFO, The most senior extendee, the most junior extendee. Gentlemen your contract is a mess, let your reps fix it for all

Do you want your union hijacked by an angry mob that suffer from tunnel vision, consider only their viewpoint, and prey on the vulnerable, those in the numeric minority. Who is their next target going to be?

[Liam Gallagher]

To keep it simple... The legal action in essence promotes RA65 with no BPP.. in essence the AOA GC turned this down in the Aug/Sep 2007 .

If you believe the pilot body really wants RA65 no BPP; encourage the vote or better still bring your own vote forward on the issue. Then with a successful vote, send Paul W upstairs with a pen and sign a deal... save yourself a lot of grief and cash.....

[Jack57]

So with all due respect

Can someone tell me where the GC were when the Oasis and KA DEC's were offered Age 65?

IS there not something very wrong with that alone?

[iceman50]

Firstly a couple of questions for the SFO putting forward the motion.

1. Date of joining CX, fleet and base.
2. Date of joining the HKAOA.

Secondly for all the supporters of the motion and for those that vote for it.

1. We will ask the HKAOA to supply your names to the company with the express instruction that you wish to retire at 55, do not want to be offered an extension and do not want a retirement age of 65.
2. In doing so you are waiving all your legal rights that you may have had to work at CX past 55.

Thirdly for all the recent joiners of the HKAOA under the "special deal" (read cheap) are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and pay up to 5% of your salary to

1. Fight the company for your contract.
2. Support some of your colleagues who may fall foul of any action that might be taken by the company.

[Liam Gallagher]

It's called COS08.......

The GC turned down a deal in Aug/Sep 07. Two of the unacceptable points the CC vocalized at the time were "RA65 with no BPP" and that new joiners would be on a different contract. Now we have the GC eager to fund a litigation, that if successful, will achieve "RA65 with no BPP". The company unilaterally imposed COS08 on new joiners without so much as a whimper from the membership.:rolleyes:

[Voiceofreason]

Then....if the company wants to negotiate on RA65, then welcome to the table. .... for collective bargaining for all CoS-99s.


The only slight problem with this noble plan, quadspeed, is that there is no such thing as collective bargaining in Hong Kong. Even if a deal is eventually reached, and the AoA vote 99% in favour, that remaining 1% is not obliged to accept the deal, or, for that matter, any non-AoA member.

So, we're left with the same problem, of some people happy to accept, whilst others not - fair deal for all? More variants of CoS? :ugh:

[CYRILJGROOVE]

J
to keep it simple... The legal action in essence promotes RA65 with no BPP. No the legal case deals with jurisdiction and then age discrimination. Your COS will still have BPP provisions in it. The GC have said they want to look after the entire membership and approach the company with a proposal. Having court action from both ends of the membership adds pressure for a settlement. The proposal by Mr Thyrd cuts one chunk of membership adrift for the sole benefit of another intrest group.

The GC turned down a deal in Aug/Sep 07. Two of the unacceptable points the CC vocalized at the time were "RA65 with no BPP" and that new joiners would be on a different contract. Well the new joiners are on RA65 COS and in Sept 07 I am pretty sure the BPP was not going to those on a base without the seniority to hold that base as a Captain. Support for those choosing to sit on a cosy base and pick up a Captains paycheck is lukewarm at best

If you believe the pilot body really wants RA65 no BPP; encourage the vote or better still bring your own vote forward on the issue. I will not need to bring on a vote, the company are getting the answers from the crew directly. They know when it comes to the crunch all Capt's would probably sign RA65 as BPP does not effect them (in particular those Capts about to be abandoned), The FO's who are actually being bypassed are missing out on the BPP because it goes to those not willing to come to HKG to get their command, or those that have failed awaiting another command course. Common sense would dictate take the option of RA65 because if you rip out all the emotion about BPP is of little value to them.

Cathay are aware that world wide legislation is slowiy closing in on them, with the cunudrum of On Shoring it is inevitable that RA65 will happen sooner or later. The sooner that dawns on the pilot community and the AOA can move foward the better.

The fix from the companies angle is actually very simple, Drop a new COS in your box, strike out all references to RA55, substitute it with RA 65. They know the numbers hanging out for BPP and RA55 is very low, the lack of BPP will mean a very low cost option for the company. A quick little letter to those on a base offering them a command in HKG is all that is need to according to 10.4 in the 1999 BPP COS provisions to take BPP from them. Those in HKG will have signed RA65 and BINGO, we have been outfoxed again and come up with zip for something that some think is the Holy Grail. (BPP). Withdraw the motion and concentrate your efforts on achieving a deal with appropriate compensation , not ripping the AOA to bits

If you do not believe that contracts could end up in your box, As some one else said, "you just have not been here long enough"

[SFGDOG]

CJG

You conveniently omit to mention that RA65 will add years onto the time to command for all FO's and SO's. Never mind BPP, this alone is why not many, if any COS99 FO's or SO's will ever be keen on RA65 without appropriate compensation. End of story.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

SFGDOG
I have been going to great lengths to try and get it thru your heads to negotiate something with compensation for the inevitable increase in RA. If you wait too long fighting your own membership the company will outsmart you and you will end up with NO COMPENSATION. Have you got it yet? Re read and take it in.

[SFGDOG]

If its so inevitable, why spend money in court to make some lawyers even wealthier and why are we even writing about it? This idea of imposed RA65 contracts placed in our mailbox is just a pipe-dream in the current environment. There is just no reason for the company to do it and lots of reasons not to. A year ago it may have been a possibility. Forced leave without pay is a more likely event. How many extensions, even on the freighter are being offered at the moment?

[Dragon69]

Cyril,

Reading your posts makes feel really sorry for you! You are so vocal as if your life depends on RA65.


The fix from the companies angle is actually very simple, Drop a new COS in your box, strike out all references to RA55, substitute it with RA 65. They know the numbers hanging out for BPP and RA55 is very low



Those in HKG will have signed RA65 and BINGO, we have been outfoxed again and come up with zip for something that some think is the Holy Grail. (BPP). Withdraw the motion and concentrate your efforts on achieving a deal with appropriate compensation , not ripping the AOA to bits



What pathetic, pathetic statements! You really think the majority of the pilot body want to sign away BPP in favor of RA65, or that everyone is going to sign a news CoS because it has been dropped in our mailboxes :yuk::yuk:. We have been here long enough, hence the reason you will find majority will not sign new CoSs as we have in the past. You're trying to sell your argument by making fictitious statements on behalf of the majority.

[iceman50]

Kent

I am not trying to intimidate you, just stating that if you are all so against RA65 then you should be quite happy to sign it away now yourselves to ensure no gets it now. Can't have your cake and eat it.

[Loopdeloop]

Iceman
The information you seek is easy to come by, certainly with regards to Fleet/Base/Joining date of the company. If you can't access crewdirect, ask a pilot friend. As to AOA joining date, a fairly long time ago and at least he's put some work in on our behalf in the past as a GC member, so don't dismiss the proposal out of hand.

As for your other ideas re individuals giving up rights to employment beyond 55, engage brain first and think the idea through to its conclusion. Does it result in a fair solution for all? It's barely a step up from KJP's idea last year! Effectively, all captains would sign up for 65 and some F/O's would. The effect on those who didn't would be significant both in career earnings and time to command.

[iceman50]

Loop

I realise I could get that information that way but haven't, wanted to see if the man himself would reply.

As for engaging brain you should re-read the post. If all the naysayers want to deny some of us the right to work to 65, then those proposing it and advocating the contract says 55, should sign away their right to work past 55. You cannot shaft one section to only want it changed when YOU get towards 55. When perhaps your plans went out the window or heaven forbid you actually ENJOY the job!

[Loopdeloop]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point then. The way I see it, we're all playing on the same field at the moment in terms of retirement age and bypass pay - We being all those possibly affected by the appeal, and same playing field being same contractual rights. To do what you're suggesting would give one side the slope and a good following wind.
Even the fairest solution suggested by the AOA still gives the older side the slope. If we got RA 65 and BPP for extensions past 55 then all the F/Os & S/Os are still going to have their commands delayed significantly, with some (but not enough) compensation on the financial side. Their basing opportunity will also slide to the right by many years.

The "who deserves BPP" question is a red herring, we need to concentrate on finding a fairish solution, which your suggestion isn't.

[raven11]

Gentleman (and probably some Lady Ppruners),

Over the past day or so, I’ve been mulling over a thought that came to me (earth shattering, as that may seem). I’m thinking that when you read all the emotional, yet well argued, positions expressed on both sides of this issue, you get a sense of just how frustrated and fed up we all are for the thousand different cuts, twists, interpretations, changes, and now more court cases, involving our conditions of employment.

Does this thread read like the expressions of a happy, stable, and balanced workforce? Or, does it read like a workforce coming apart at the seams? I mean really! It’s now becoming obvious that frustrations have been simmering just below the boiling point. The expressions on this thread are a plea to the AOA and our managers to sort out this crazy mess?

Whichever side you're on, I think you feel under attack! I think we all just want to hold on to what we have. No more cuts, no more degradations, no more B, C, D, or O scales, no more direct entries or queue jumping on much reduced conditions, no more complicated basing schemes.... We all want a common set of conditions so that we all know where the goal posts are, and so that we all are all treated the same, valued the same, and rewarded the same, for our work.

I think the previous GMA was probably the only one who understood the twists and turns of the far too many contracts, conditions, and schemes. Perhaps he was in his position for too long, and things just slowly evolved this way over time. I don’t know. In any case, I really feel for the new GMA who now needs to sort this mess out, and “steady the ship”.

When I joined this airline, it was an incredible feeling! I was so proud and happy…I had made it! To tell someone you worked for Cathay was a fantastic feeling. People recognized, and yes envied, the fact that you belonged to a first class organization. I still feel that way, and most people still recognize Cathay as the best airline to fly on, an airline with a first class cockpit and cabin product, and a proud workforce.

Cathay remains the finest legacy airline on the planet. Bar none. I would not want to work for any other outfit. If you want to see what we do not want to become, take a look at the “low cost” other airline currently based in HKG. That’s what a fragmented, penny-wise but pound foolish, outfit looks like! How safe is that airline? In it’s current form, it’s an embarrassment to Hong Kong.

So my plea is to both the AOA and our management to recognize all of the above, and sort this mess out. We all need to mix a little water in our wine, and that includes Cathay. Give us a balanced, common, and fair set of working conditions. Something worthy of this organization. Let’s just get it done!

Here’s my suggestion. PW should ask NR to clear his appointment calendar for a day. Then the two of them, and only the two of them, can lock the door and hammer out a fair and balanced agreement! One that recognizes the requirements of both the employer and the workforce. The office door remains closed, except for the occasional serving of food and water, until they reach a fair understanding. We don’t want nor need a militant and poisoned relationship. Nor does the public or shareholder we serve. We’ve had that in the past, and it was the basis of where we are today!

I really do believe that the fix is that simple.

[Humber10]

Kent,

You hit the nail on the head... we all knew what we were getting into by signing the dotted line. It was pretty clear to me when I signed up, age 55, quickish time to command... etc. The contract states 55, so what's the arguement?? Im sure there are plenty of other jobs out there if you wish to continue to work, floats in the Maldives, or somewhere else tropical, isnt that more appealing?

Age 55 worked for all those before us, so why change a good thing and make it harder for those coming through and less attractive to those who were looking at joining.

And NO, I wont be asking for 65 later on, there's a lot more to life than sitting in a long haul tin can...

[VR-HFX]

Raven

As someone a wee bit older in years and years at CX...albeit not many (looking at your age), all I can say is that it is not easy to unscramble the egg.

Like you, I used to think that the mess we find ourself in could be easily resolved with a good dose of commonsense and leadership.

Sadly this is not the case. Not even Rod Eddington, who is no intellectual slouch, foresaw the mess he instigated, albeit at the behest of the owners.

My take after well more than 20 years is that more unites us than divides us but the company has become so big and unwieldy with no identifiable source of ultimate decision making that a solution will not be forthcoming UNLESS Sir Adrian himself can close the hangar door and sort it out. Putting NR and PW in the same room will achieve nothing.

Your right about CX being the best of the legacy carriers with a loyal clientele who will ensure its survival in the worst of economic circumstances. The rest is up to Sir Adrian IMHO.

Tin Can

Spot on.

[Liam Gallagher]

The point you make is valid and often discussed around the campfire. Word around said campfire is the new GMA agrees with the sentiments of your post.

However the problem he has can be illustrated by viewing the budget to pay the pilot body as a pie. That pie is not going to get bigger; in fact it is almost certainly about to get a bit smaller. You are proposing to cut this shrinking pie a different way to achieve what you call "a balanced, common, and fair set of working conditions".

I would wager you presently receive a slice of that pie bigger than most; are you prepared to accept a significantly smaller piece.... say... B scale lite?

[HaveQuick]

Cyril et al, you espouse egalitarianism yet as NC has already suggested money, as usual with Cathay Pacific, has become the problem. The difference in career earnings between the last A scaler and the first B scaler, including pay, PFund, 13th month, travel fund and bonuses is approximately £1,000,000 (+ or - £200,000), in my estimation (assuming 10yrs to command and 7 years as captain). This is not equality.
NC has also suggested that an F/O will have to work for nothing for 3 years, to even stand still. If a captain goes to 65 he will get 100% of the benefit, the F/O will only get 70%. It is even worse if the F/O retires at 60, he or she works for 5 years for 20% pay. This is not equality.
Your equality for all appears to be more “Animal Farm”; we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
However, we do need to hear from the Committee, and quickly, to see what their proposals are before deciding on the issue. As Loopdeloop suggests the CoS at RA55 is our last “level” playing field.

[Fac6]

It's been said many times, when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds. Some say there has been a shift in society where the norm and RA is now 65... what rubbish, there has been no shift. The only change is that most of those saying it are now 54 :)

I know many wont agree with my post but thats life, if they wanted to retire at 65 they should have joined VS, BMI etc.

Not to mention how RA 65 will seriously screw basing opportunities for the junior guys.

[raven11]

Fac6

You're right, your post does annoy me. What part of "we need a balanced agreement that’s fair to everyone" don’t you understand?

There are over 230 posts on this thread. Have you read any? At least 115 of them address and answer the questions you raise.

When you say: "when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds..."

Then follow it up with: "Not to mention how RA 65 will seriously screw basing opportunities for the junior guys". It suggests you haven't read anything on this thread. It takes us all the way back to page one.

So please, read all the arguments, both for and against, then come back and contribute something more mature.

[yokebearer]

That pie is not going to get bigger; in fact it is almost certainly about to get a bit smaller. You are proposing to cut this shrinking pie a different way to achieve what you call "a balanced, common, and fair set of working conditions".

I would wager you presently receive a slice of that pie bigger than most; are you prepared to accept a significantly smaller piece.... say... B scale lite?If the "Pie of pilot pay" is not going to get bigger - then we have to slice it a different way someone said. Excellent idea.

Here goes -

1.We accept RA65 without bypass pay BUT all extendees go on B scale and the money thus saved goes into a raise of the FO pay scale - which will compensate for lack of bypass. So extendees sacrifice a bit of cash and FO's sacrifice quick commands. Nobody wins but it seems fair. No cost solution to CX.
2. Inflationary adjustments on yearly basis gets written into contract.
3. Housing assistance for mortgages gets extended beyond 15 years to 25 like Dragon Air. It makes after all no difference to CX.

The only thing that costs CX here is inflationary adjustment - which any decent world class corporation seems to agree on is only fair.

Now someone go tell the DFO.

[christn]

I am A scale and would like the opportunity to continue beyond 55. However, my original contract expires at age 55 so I would not expect to do so on my current salary. I would be happy to continue on B-scale with the savings made by the company available to compensate those disadvantaged by my continuation.

I'm sure not many will agree with me but there has to be some compromise on both sides.

[Alpor]

A contract is a contract. The Cathay contract is to 55 even though the retirement age for pilots of large jets was until recently 60 and there was no outcry against that. Extending the COS to age RA65 for that particular contract would now disadvantage a lot of pilots within Cathay largely because there are now a range of different contracts. Most of this has been documented in this thread. But also, for example, this would disadvantage ex Dragonair pilots and any pilot who has joined under COS 08 because pilots ahead of them would not be leaving the company when they were expected to leave. So why can't those pilots that want to continue beyond 55 be employed in Hong Kong on the Freighter, initially, in the same way that ex Oasis pilots were, and at the bottom of the seniority list? Or is that not good enough?

[Liam Gallagher]

Nice idea.... but you are infringing Charlie's new found human rights. You can't give someone a pay cut merely because he's 55. Equally, you can't argue that he signed a contract agreeing to all because he has human rights donchaknow. If you persist in this argument; the AOA will have to fund an appeal and Iceman will make a list of names.... get the picture....?

[jumpseat]

Christn

I am completely at a loss as to why you would continue beyond 55 on reduced terms. Times change, civiised society moves on. Laws affecting contracts change.

"Well guv I signed up to go down chimneys and I'll bloody well keep doin' it despite those toffs makin' it illegal"

" Sir, I know that being female doesn't make me inferior, but I signed a contract that pays me less, so despite the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) I refuse to be paid the same as my male counterparts"

Come on people, lets get real. I am all for compromise but in today's society force me to retire at 55 or reduce my terms after 55, Shove it.
The European Convention on Human Rights will prevail. Should we be arguing about whether Cathay Pacific Airways should be taken to court by our Union for discriminating against employees because of their age when every other civilised employer on the planet has woken up to the modern world. its Cathay management that "SFO motion proposer" should be targeting.

I would bet my house, pension, future lottery win , that anyone of the peeps backing the anti RA65 lobby or refusing to back Charlies, case would not, repeat not, refuse a change to their contract including RA65 after all the the pre 1993 employees have departed. (Yes when we joined it wasn't called "A Scale, it was the going rate for the job)

Mr "SFO motion proposer". if your contract is changed after I am forced to retire at 55 I want half your earnings post 55.

Yeah..... I didn't think so.:ugh:

[bobrun]

Everyone I spoke to actually would like the option to work past 55, even junior officers. However few are selfish enough to propose that junior officers should pay the bill of RA65 while the more seniors only gain from it. A fair deal for all is achievable and affordable yet management don't want to hear about it. Blame the company, not the junior officers if you can't work past 55 at present; they are the ones not agreeing to increase the RA. :eek:

[Goonybird]

Here's how it played out in the Canadian courts for a couple of AC pilots who felt they were forced to retire at 60.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1176_5806-t1177_5906-t1079_6005ed17august07.pdf

FlyPast60 Web Update Page -- Fly Past 60 Coalition Recent Events (http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm)

Here is an eloquent way to retire, copied from another forum, please read.


"I joined AC over 34 years ago, (best decision I ever made), under the expectation that I would be leaving at 60 and so did everyone else on the seniority list behind me. I planned for it and I am more than happy to get out of the way of those who also planned on my/our retirement at 60.... I've been at it for 40 years last June and, as the saying goes, "...and now for something completely different!".

If 65 is what is wanted by the pilots (and therefore the Association) or an employer, then bring it to the table and deal with the issues raised by this decision.

If I might be permitted a bit of leeway and bandwidth...Two months to go. Fran asked me what I was going to do on Day One. I said I'd probably go out to the button of 26L and watch airplanes land and takeoff like I was doing in 1957, perhaps just to write the last page. There'll be no castor oil and belching smoke from the Pratts or the smooth drone of Merlins or the crackle of the Trans-Canada's connies starting and taxiing out for London, England from the south terminal. We can't wander onto the ramp (Harrisson Airways and the Aero Club of BC were favourites) and have one of the guys loading the airplane take a small kid to see the cockpit of what were Canadian Pacific's and TCA's brand new DC8s anymore. The DC8 simulator my brother and I built in 1961 is long gone (though some of the instruments made out of plywood are still in the FDA batcave). The high school had a bandsaw and you could cut curves with it, so making stringers was fun designing and putting together - because of my brother, even the lights and radios worked and we found something called the Radio-Telephone Operator's Handbook so we could learn how they did it, (my brother, now an electrical engineer, stuck a bobby-pin in an outlet and found his life's career in a flash of inspiration.. )

Anyway, some thoughts on Fran's question. We all have a Day One - it's the very last first day. I sure don't feel like on "old fart", so I think there's a lot in being able to fly to a later age but see comments above)...in fact, some kid with an "N" nearly piled into me from behind the other day when I had to stop quickly for a car coming out of a parking lot that he couldn't see. He laid on the horn, shook his fist, swore and yelled that I drove like a...like a...a...a fffifty-year old!!

I thanked him warmly and carried on... "

Don Hudson

[AnAmusedReader]

Iceman reasonably asked that he


wanted to see if the man himself would reply.



I don't think there has been a reply. Maybe because of the following.

My contract says that officers who decline a command course will not be eligible for command bypass pay. That makes me want to know if someone who wants the contract enforced (retire at 55) is happy to sit on a base, decline a command course and take bypass pay.

Isn't that a breach of conttract?http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Also that person would be a hyprocrite would he not? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Firstly it is not desperation that drives my postings on this forum; the desperation comes from those who continue to argue that we all signed to 55 and that it, end of story, game over, disregard all else. Despite all of changing laws and social attitudes to discrimination in the world, it counts for nothing. Are we in a moral and legal vacuum in CX?. Does the expectation of our FO’s and SO’s negate all of that? The company even has a brand new found mission statement that says we are a socially responsible company, 27 contracts and differing age retirements makes the statement a little hollow; however I believe they are striving toward that goal. It is the total disregard for the basic principle of equal opportunity that the junior membership is displaying by not being prepared to acknowledge or compromise on that draws continuing comment. It is the denial to acknowledge that even in our own company we do not all have equal opportunity to retire at a unified age. It is the denial to accept the inevitable and get the best out of it that drives comment. It is frustration that the younger members are going to get outsmarted and their selfishness may cause them to lose a great deal more than BPP that causes me to post. Egalitarianism? very wide off the mark and missing the arguments.

A considerable number of vocal first officers have a vested interest in continuing the status quo in collecting as many $$$$$$$ for as long as possible. To be a bank teller and collect the manager’s wage would be a fantasy too good to believe in other professions. The original intent of BPP was not to promote a culture of a free ride.

.
It is not a red herring who is getting BPP, it is the driver and motivator to the appalling motion and it will also be fundamental to a resolution of a fair RA65 deal. Those getting the BPP or anticipating it are the thrust behind the motion.

Further more it is a disgraceful concept that newly joining crew members who have RA65 in their contracts will be able to vote on this issue, as they could deny long serving pilots the same opportunity on RA as they enjoy. It appears elements of the membership thinks denying the funding will enhance their ability to hold onto BPP or shorten promotion time if you do not get BPP in the case of new joiners. This motion does not have a shred of democracy associated with it nothing could be further than the truth.

I have been laboriously promoting a negotiated settlement for the entire membership and freely acknowledge there will be some short term pain for some long term gain. Given that there is a certain amount of inevitability the RA65 will be implemented now or in the near future it would be a logical move to attempt to achieve the most amount of payback as possible.

The pay increments and salary would be a good place to start, after all would you rather the cash goes to those who are actually by passed or it to be given to those NOT truly affected. A defined benefit retirement scheme has never been more essential than over the last year, and also the end to the divisive A and B pay rates simply has to be sorted. The DEC crewing of the freighter is costing the FO’s years longer waiting for those commands, to lock them back up into the seniority list is essential and would offset some of the effects of RA65. These are worthy causes to strive for in a settlement and would have the support of the entire membership.


However to continue to defend the morally indefensible and continue paying those sitting on a beach in Brisbane and all over the world, who are refusing to move to HKG for their command, yet banking Captains wages whilst voluntarily remaining an FO whose seniority number does not entitle them to a Captains slot, is going to end in grief sooner or later.

I
The proposers of this motion have clearly misidentified whom to pick a fight with, it is not their senior fellow aviators, the proposers have no Plan B should the company impose a choice as they did in 94, 99, and 2001.The company have done their homework on what you will do if presented a choice, you have clearly told them you will take RA65. The sweeteners will not be there if the company imposes a choice. Unresolved issues will remain.

By going ahead with the motion against the express wishes of the GC the plotters have demonstrated they are amateurs in planning strategy, undermined the GC’s well thought out strategy of a multi pronged approach. The plotters have severely underestimated the wrath of their peers they attempt to abandon, and they risk ending up with nothing.

The GC have recommended not to support the petition, be guided accordingly don’t jump off the cliff following a mob who cannot think for the overall benefit of all members and who are getting a free ride to Captains Pay and want it to continue forever and ever..

As the more reasoned posters have said let the AOA and the company sorts this out properly. The new GMA should welcome the opportunity to set thing right after years of mismanagement. Well said Raven

[tiger321]

I'll start out by saying that Charlie is a gentleman and I know that all this fuss is not what he was after.

With all the finger pointing and bashing going on here - has anybody stopped to think about the chances of this court case actually winning? As I understand it, the original case was unceremoniously thrown out. Surprise, surprise, the lawyers think there is a good chance of success on appeal. Have you ever met a lawyer that didn't think you had a great case?

I reckon there is every chance of this appeal being thrown out again. I'm sure the previous "lady" judge didn't just ignore the facts as has been claimed.

I have no doubts that age 65 will eventually come into effect. But that is only going to happen when the company wants it. When that happens hopefully everyone will sit down together and formulate a plan that works for everyone.

A few of the posters above are deperate to rush through something yesterday so that they can "unselflishly" (as they have explained!??!!) continue. I would be very surprised if that happens. A good and fair deal for everybody is going to take a long time to hammer out.

Flame away.

[Loopdeloop]

I know for a fact that the proposer of the motion is not in receipt of BPP so hopefully we can put that malicious rumour to bed here and now.

With the likelihood that the company will soon stop offering extensions, it is ironic that the best way of him achieving BPP is for the appeal to succeed and for us to win the follow-on case to retain BPP for captains working beyond 55 despite their new found right to work to 65.

I still say that the question of who receives BPP is a red herring. We can deal with that question separately and it has no bearing on the title of this thread. The fact is that this case will be heard whether the AOA pays for it or not - the figures being bandied about on this thread are vastly inflated and Charlie could probably afford to pay for it himself but in reality wouldn't have to even if the AOA won't pay as there are enough rich donors to the cause!

The only thing to come out of this motion is the pitching of one pilot group against another so I would urge the proposer to withdraw the motion on the following grounds:
1. The cost is not significant - The AOA can afford it.
2. The appeal will be heard anyway whether we pay for it or not.
3. The proposal will drive a wedge between many members of the union.

[SFGDOG]

CJG,

sorry to shoot you down old boy but I can gaurantee you that nobody with a seniority number of 1004 is getting BPP. You would need to be about a 100 further down the list. If I am wrong then someone owes me some dosh.

[happy nightflyer]

There are clearly some very strong feelings on either side of this debate. I can understand why the majority are not in favour of their money being spent in this way but no one has yet successfully argued why AOA funds should be used for this appeal. Indeed Loopdeloop says the appellant has enough wealthy backers to fund his fees without the AOA getting involved at all – so why did they?


Whether the appeal is won or lost the only people affected will be those who are on a UK base who wish to work beyond 55 and stay on their base. The outcome will not affect either way anybody else’s chances of achieving NRA 65 so the majority are funding an appeal which affects a minority. Even if the appeal is won the final outcome for those affected is unclear. The company is not likely to offer NRA 65 on present terms and conditions. They may well offer COS 2008 to all on the UK base thus complying with the judgement but where does this place those unwilling to sign COS 08? They would have been offered employment to age 65 as required but would then have turned the offer down thus voluntarily choosing to cease employment when their existing contracts expire at age 55. This is about retirement age and not contract law. I would suggest that any legal action brought in order to force the company to offer a new contract to age 65 with existing T & C’s would be a very expensive and futile exercise.


How does such a scenario help the remainder of the workforce – it doesn’t. This is a UK appeal and the result irrelevant elsewhere. Thus those who believe a successful appeal will affect anyone other than UK based pilots are dreaming.

So please can someone explain why the GC got involved in the first place?

[Fly747]

The reason the AoA should be involved is because age discrimination is illegal in UK. I would expect the AoA to support any minority of members wherever they are if they have a valid arguement. The AoA cannot chose what laws it does or doesn't like.

[Humber10]

13 pages of guys crapping on here.... Do you really think you will make a difference here on this site? Have any of you actually written to the AOA and made your point? I'm guessing from what's been said here, you all have???

Good luck to us all, either way, sounds like half of either junior or senior are screwed.

My last gripe, to the guys that say 'relax, you can work an extra 10 years' are you serious? I have never had any plan to work past 55 in this company and joined this company so I could retire earlier at say 50 from cx. Even though I'm on z scale, this is still possible, I dont understand how a super B or A scale can not have enough money to retire at 55. Dont you atleat have one house paid off and a super fund? We are not rock stars or bankers, if you wanted to retire with millions, then you are in the wrong industry.

It is a very bad asumption to assume that junior guys want to sit in the can for an extra 10 years. If you want to, then there are plenty of other oppurtunities out there for you.

Job well done on the Hudson yesterday! :ok:

[Numero Crunchero]

Sorry to interject some facts into the argument, but here goes.

The proposer is about 120 numbers behind the newest 777/330 CN. As cyril has pointed out, about 43 of the 55 BPP recipients are 'unsuitable' and so they are senior to the most junior CN.

The Proposer is not on BPP - at 2009 expansion rates it will be many many years before he gets it. If things go back to normal next year then it will be about 2-3 years before he is eligible for BPP.

Many opposers to the the appeal are current CNs - so no they are not all 'self serving' FOs who want $$$$$$.

The gains to be made by pilots working beyond 55 on current terms are far far greater than any BPP that might be received by the FOs whose commands are delayed as a consequence.

The GC is not some omnipotent being. It did not decide with all knowing power and knowledge to fund the appeal. It argued it back and forth and voted, and the majority were for funding the appeal.


Don't make this personal. Play the ball not the man. CM and ST are good guys who happen to disagree on an issue.

[bonajet]

Out of idle curiosity Humber 10, how old are you? Just so I can get an idea of how far in the future you are talking about when you state that you'll be retired by 50.

[Liam Gallagher]

have stated that RA55 is in breach UK Law. To their mind this is a given fact and the rest of their argument flows from there.

A bit of googling reveals the cornerstone legislation in the UK is The Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006. I understand that this is the legalisation that Charlie was barred from using because he operates a foreign registered aircraft.

Given that this Regulation is EU based it must be seen as the current Authority on UK, if not EU, Age discrimination. Google also revealed a review of the Regulation by an Employment Partner at Freshfields (a major UK Law firm) and I quote

"An employer may be able to defend both direct and indirect discrimination claims if it can show the discrimination is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". A "legitimate aim" must correspond with a real need of an employer and could include business efficiency..... If a "legitimate aim" can be achieve by a less discriminatory method, it should be used.... It will not be acceptable to discriminate because it is more expensive not to..."

So it would seem you can discriminate on age, so long as you are trying to achieve a legitimate aim. Given that we are promoted on a seniority system (it says here ho ho) the company will say that to ensure business efficiency it needs the continued promotion of the junior ranks. To achieve this it needs to continously retire at the top and that it has no other means of achieving this legitimate aim. This is in all the COS99 Pilots' contracts; Charlie achieved his command by this method and guys junior to him are also relying on this method.

No apology for bringing reasoned debate into the thread....

[Kitsune]

But once again Liam, if I enter into a contract that has a definitive end point i.e. 55, come to the end of the contract, and then accept a second contract with different terms is this discrimination on age......?

The age discrimination law is about someone being paid less for the same job solely due to their age, NOT someone coming to the end of one contract and then reapplying and accepting a new one on reduced terms.

In both administrations, EU and UK, if the case is won, then it will mean a seismic shift of law, that allows the governments to regulate the employment contracts of foreign registered aircraft..... which opens a whole new can of worms. :ooh:

[BusyB]

55 was only in the contract because it was the max retirement age when the contract was written.

[Liam Gallagher]

Footballers often finish a contract and then sign with the same club on a new contract on reduced terms. However, if you remain on the same contract and get a pay cut solely because you are 55, that would appear to be (highly) discriminatory; however is this what Charlie is challenging?

I thought he was saying that the fact he has to retire at 55, when he is perfectly capable of doing the job, is age discrimination. I restate, the point of my post was to challenge those on here saying RA55 is discriminatory and indefensible and then use that "fact" to launch into all sorts of tangental arguments. The company can and no doubt will mount a robust Defence. Whether that Defence will prevail, can only be determined by someone committing a lot of time and cash to what I suspect will be a lengthy legal battle through, I suspect, the entire UK legal system.

Should the company prevail, they will then further argue that they were lawful in retiring Charlie at 55, but then offered him a further (different) contract on different terms (ie lower). I suppose that is why we call them extendees (amongst other names:eek:), the company refers to them as retirees.

To anyone thinking the company will not mount a robust Defence. Imagine the cost to the company of losing this one. Compensation to every UK (possibly EU) pilot they have retired at 55. Those who can get a medical will come back in rank and seniority (time to command...demotion?). Back-pay to all those on reduced terms, including P-Fund. The plan to get rid of A-scale moves to the right 10 years. I note in the Age Discrimination Regulations that employers have to provide medical coverage to all employees (this cannot be declined on cost). I would guess this would also apply to loss of licence and death in service insurance. I bet the premium on loss of licence of 60 year old+ pilot (if you could get it) would be greater than the individual's annual salary..... I would also bet that should the company lose this one the Intracx Notice would have the "Unhappy Tony Face".... followed immediately by a Notice to the Stock Exchange of a profit's warning!

The point you make in your final paragraph is valid, however I am sure any Judgment would only apply to those in Charlie's circumstances (ie House of Lord's ruling saying he's a UK employee afforded protection of UK Employment Law, save for this clumsly worded sub-sectioned) . I don't see Air India pilot's arriving at LHR and successfully claiming Age Discrimination.... but nonetheless a can of worms as you say....

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Sfdog


nobody with a seniority number of 1004 is getting BPP. You would need to be about a 100 further down the list. If I am wrong then someone owes me some dosh.

The BPP is so convoluted and its interpretation of BPP by the company is so flawed it is almost impossible to unravel. Facts are the most junior passenger B744 captain in HKG has a seniority number of around 913. In the next 100 seniority numbers, approx 10 are already captains as they have taken “early commands” jumping the seniority list if you like, arguably there are no provisions in our contract to do so, without a FACA. There are some 55 pilots on extension according to figures floating around.

If seniority was followed allocating commands and according to the COS and those who decline a command are excluded along with those that failed the course, you would presume BPP would be payable to seniority number 978. That is 913 +55 +10. Presently many FO’s in the mid 700+ seniority range a getting the BPP and it is not being paid to those who are effectively next in line for the command.

As there is no freighter agreement because the company cancelled it unilaterally (in order to prop it up with pax captains before Oasis) most would agree that those holding a freighter command past seniority number 913 of which on the B744 alone there appears to be no less than 60 names a bunch even having phantom seniority numbers of 99950. All of the freighter Captains over 55 with seniority numbers 1-913 also would generate BPP according to the COS. There is probably 100 or so freighter captains that should generate BPP and that would nominally put approx seniority number 1078 in the BPP entitlement according to the current COS. The numbers have not even considered the Classic . Additionally the SO’s prior to 08 have BPP entitlements. Obviously this is why the AOA are taking the company to task in the Labour Tribunal for breach of contract and the cash amounts may be significant. SFDOG may get BPP and under the current COS would be entitled to it provided he had not declined a command.

Basically the entire system is an absolute complete mess when you have people (DEC’s )holding commands with seniority numbers of 2500+, folks being paid as captains with no intention of doing a course and others in the mid range queue jumping and taking so called early commands. I understand the frustration of the junior members not able to hold a command, however what most do not understand is that has been happening here in CX for the last 20 years and the company mostly resorts to half baked and poorly thought out solutions such as COSP94 and COS 99, ASL etc. I know CX have not a clue what to do if layoffs were needed; they have created a monster with no systematic process of last in first off. The B744 check and training system would collapse if all those over 55 were let go. Maybe the company is being mischievous in paying BPP in the manner it is at the moment to generate discontent, who knows?

BPP is a very valuable and potentially extremely expensive deterrent in the COS and it has some very real currency when seeking a resolution to RA65 there is no doubt about that but it may be of little value if CX acts in the manner it always has in the past when the bulk of newer pilots were not in the company. If the majority of those seeking to derail a complete solution, by not supporting Charlie are anticipating BPP for the long term then I would suggest they are misguided. It is a bit like holding on to a share to long and it becomes worthless, you wish you sold it when it had some value. There is some inevitability that RA will come in a some point, and BPP will be inextricably linked to a solution one way or another.

At the end of the day only a minority of crew receive BPP and the greater numbers do not see it however quite rightly the AOA is robustly defending the minority, something the leadership are happy to do for a minority at the other end of the spectrum, but some members do not support. This thread has a list of very worrying comments which would have you believe that some of our members actually actively support age discrimination to further their own goals.

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.

Liam

I don't see Air India pilot's arriving at LHR and successfully claiming Age Discrimination....


But liam Charlie is employed in the UK and pays taxes there, The AI pilots are mostly employed in India and presumably all have the same opportunity of a unified retirement age throughout their company….and agreed it is convoluted and who knows the flow on effects, best to cut a legal deal one would presume,

FAC6

It's been said many times, when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds. Some say there has been a shift in society where the norm and RA is now 65... what rubbish, there has been no shift. The only change is that most of those saying it are now 54


OMG, misguided, misinformed missed the point, think this bloke would miss most things

Yokebearer

We accept RA65 without bypass pay BUT all extendees go on B scale

Sounds like you would be a top negotiator……….for the company!!

Loop

The only thing to come out of this motion is the pitching of one pilot group against another so I would urge the proposer to withdraw the motion on the following grounds:
1. The cost is not significant - The AOA can afford it.
2. The appeal will be heard anyway whether we pay for it or not.
3. The proposal will drive a wedge between many members of the union

Agree agree agree

Jumpseat
I would bet my house, pension, future lottery win , that anyone of the peeps backing the anti RA65 lobby or refusing to back Charlies, case would not, repeat not, refuse a change to their contract including RA65 after all the the pre 1993 employees have departed.

Your correct jumpseat, and the company knows it as well, add my house to the bet!

[yokebearer]

Well Cyril - you make a lot of sense but like most don't offer any solutions.

I guess all there is for us and the AOA to do is the American way - Sue sue sue and then sue some more till there is a new deal??

If the AOA is pursuing age 65 and SO bypass in court then hopefully it is a matter of time before FO bypass goes to court too.

[nike]

Not sure how shagging your cousin will fix the situ, there yoke.:)

Air eNZed boys said they've got a 70 yr pilot, and few over 65.

If the retirement age thing goes down the discrimination/human rights road, then how can there be a retirement age at all?

Hold medical = hold job.

Is a "Retirement Age" a thing of the past?

[Loopdeloop]

Cyril. BPP is being paid iaw the CoS, with the exception that it's not being paid for freighter extendees. Currently this means that it's being paid up to about 10 numbers below the most junior captain. ie 923. The argument for who deserves it is irrelevant as the CoS is quite clear that cat A,B & C F/Os receive it, whereas cat D F/Os do not. As I've said before "who should decide who deserves BPP - The Company?"
The only slightly grey area is whether "decline a command" includes "decline to move to Hkg" which is an argument for another day. This part of the CoS is open to interpretation and in fact the interpretation of it was changed by KJP last year. This is a separate issue and something that the membership could vote on and ask the GC to agree an interpretation with the company. If we were to do it iaw with "custom and practice" then the many years of not paying it to those waiting on a base would probably prevail.

I'd also like to clarify that my quoted comments are only directed at this recent proposal not to fund. The AOA have said they will fund it and I think it's immoral to withdraw funding now. KJP did the same last year in promising A scale to A scale extendees then withdrawing it - do we really want to sink to his level?

Let's pay for this case but make sure any further decisions with relation to RA are voted on.

[happy nightflyer]

You're really wound up about this and I posed a few questions a page or so ago which you declined to comment on. Can I now repeat what I said and ask you to comment please?

There are clearly some very strong feelings on either side of this debate. I can understand why the majority are not in favour of their money being spent in this way but no one has yet successfully argued why AOA funds should be used for this appeal. Indeed Loopdeloop says the appellant has enough wealthy backers to fund his fees without the AOA getting involved at all – so why did they?


Whether the appeal is won or lost the only people affected will be those who are on a UK base who wish to work beyond 55 and stay on their base. The outcome will not affect either way anybody else’s chances of achieving NRA 65 so the majority are funding an appeal which affects a minority. Even if the appeal is won the final outcome for those affected is unclear. The company is not likely to offer NRA 65 on present terms and conditions. They may well offer COS 2008 to all on the UK base thus complying with the judgement but where does this place those unwilling to sign COS 08? They would have been offered employment to age 65 as required but would then have turned the offer down thus voluntarily choosing to cease employment when their existing contracts expire at age 55. This is about retirement age and not contract law. I would suggest that any legal action brought in order to force the company to offer a new contract to age 65 with existing T & C’s would be a very expensive and futile exercise.


How does such a scenario help the remainder of the workforce – it doesn’t. This is a UK appeal and the result irrelevant elsewhere. Thus those who believe a successful appeal will affect anyone other than UK based pilots are dreaming.

So please can someone explain why the GC got involved in the first place?

[Liam Gallagher]

eerr ... that is exactly the point I was making about Air India; I thought my post was self explanatory.

You bang on about not supporting the petition but supporting the AOA in gaining a "settlement". You don't specify what that "settlement" is, but be honest, you want the non-Capts to sacrifice BPP in the hope of getting a deal on RA? Am I wrong?

[ACMS]

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.

I WILL be working past 55, I have NO CHOICE anymore since lots and lots of Captains in front of me worked past 55 on **** pay thus lowering the bar. ( or making it impossible to raise ) I CANNOT afford to retire at 55.

Sad but true.

[tiger321]

ACMS,

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 - even CX freighters:E

[fire wall]

It all comes to nought.
NR will have a new contract in your mailbox before the end of the 1st quarter which gives you a choice (sic)
- 65 and no bypass pay
- 55 and bypass pay

Yet again the top floor gets what it wants because of the "it doesn't affect me" brigade who sit on the sidelines and gleefully accept the scraps thrown them rather than collectively bargain for a better deal.

[Hkgdriver]

How does a new contract 65 no BPP and 55 get BPP have anything to do with the argument?
The contract as it stands is legally binding until it is MUTUALLY changed? The whole debate is how the current one might not be legal in the UK?

As such putting that contract in your mailbox is a waste of paper is it not??:ok:

[anthraCX]

I've been here for a long time and three "facts" have been spouted to me about once a month since the turn of the century. These are:
1. "There'll be a new contract in your mailbox tomorrow/next week/next month."
2. "Age 65 is coming whether you want it or not."
3. "We'll be 3-man to Europe by next year."

I realise that many of the people saying these really are scared, but please don't try to worry new crew with such nonsense by stating them as fact. All three need to be negotiated, be it with the AOA or the CAD.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Firewall is on the money, he is actually telling people this is what he is proposing. He is also proposing a poison chalice nothing as quite as simple as 2 easy choices. It will enrage everyone and possibly bring even more court action against him, but this is what he is telling crew this week. He has a novel way of resolving A and B scales!

Firewall is also correct that collective bargaining is the way to resolve this.

And for those that apparently cannot read and keep saying no solutions have been put forward please read below.

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.
Anthrax agree but the story above is true, 100% Ring him, email him stop him in the street, thats this weeks line

[fire wall]

Anthracx, were you here the last time we had a contract thrown in our mailboxes?
Was it a negotiated contract?
Guess you ain't been here that long then.
Finally, scared is not the word. How about disappointed in the myopic stupidity that typifies the Cathay Pacific Pilot.

[Liam Gallagher]

Some basic questions are being asked of you and it's becoming obvious you don't wish to answer them.

The only deal the company is offering is RA65 for all, with varying pay cuts beyond 55, in return for the dropping of BPP. They are not offering the total A scale (or B-scale) package to anyone and they never will; unless a Court orders them to; and as night follows day; BPP will go as well.

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. Further, if you get a deal it will certainly be conditional on Charlie (or anyone else) withdrawing his litigation. If it is on anything less than full A-Scale, how are you going to get Charlie to drop his Age discrimination claim, because clearly anything less than the full A-scale package beyond 55 is discriminatory?