Solution for Financial Crisis!

[Baron Captain ?]

It's EASY!!!

No need to offer unpaid leave at KA and CX....

Just retract the retirement age back to 55 years of age!

SIMPLE

If these guys have to work past 55 years because of they are on their 5th marriage then I think you deserve to go and work for China Airlines or the like on a contract job!...MOVE ON!

[mcgrath50]

So we lose all the experience on the top of tree? Yeah that's going to be great!

[badairsucker]

experienced guys have to leave at some point................:ok:

[Kitsune]

So the 50 - 55 year old guys aren't experienced enough? :cool:

[mcgrath50]

But by purging the top 10 years of the work force you are losing the (theoretically) group with 10 years more experience than the rest?

I understand thats not always the case but isn't last in first out more effective if people have to be let go at all.

[the reo]

it would be an interesting discussion would it not.
I don't think this would happen
however for discussion purposes.

Company makes x people redundant who are at the bottom of the seniority list.

one of them decides to sue on the basis that the top x of the seniority list shouldn't be there because they've been employed on extensions outside of the original contract?

[AsiaMiles]

I find this a strange circular argument, where red herrings are constantly raised, such as chaps on their 5th marriage. Please move on from this silly argument - take a good look at the world economy and tell me you could retire today at 55. Even Swire don't retire their staff at 55 - it was changed to 57 a few years back.

Governments around the world are already discussing how and when to increase the notational retirement age from 65 to 67 and eventually older.

The aging of the population and government regulations will bring about the change in retirement age naturally whether we like it not.

[The Wraith]

Asia Miles, you are correct. But the fact is that it isn't the case yet, so guys on extension...for whatever reason....are holding guys back. Period.:(

[Composite Man]

It has nothing to do with retirement age, number of marriages or otherwise. The simple fact is we have a COS, changes have to be negotiated and voted upon.

If it gets voted upon in the affirmative so be it, but let's keep it legal.

If we accept the blatent abuse of COS by the company then we might as well not have a COS at all.

[sizematters]

we have a CoS ?? actually there are apparently 29 different CoS/Pay Scales

and CX observe which one ??

[Cpt. Underpants]

So you want one contract? Be careful what you wish for.

I understand that our wishes will be granted...soon.

[Pogie]

What does the experience of the 55+ guys have to do with it? The airline has run for 60 years without the experience of 55+ guys. Why do we need them now? Bottom line... they enjoyed a career of moving up the list as others above them retired at 55. Why should we not have the same courtesy?

[FlexibleResponse]

Just retract the retirement age back to 55 years of age!

Wouldn't the solution be twice as good by reducing the retirement age to 45, or perhaps three times as good by reducing it to 35?

[Kitsune]

How old is Tyler?

New fuel-hedging strategy lifts shares in Air France-KLM despite €194m loss - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5728661.ece)

[BusyB]

Or to be fair we say all can have the same length of career, say 30 years. If you join at 25 you have to leave at 55, if you join at 35 leave at 65. That gives everybody the same chance and the same duration career.:ok:

[jonathon68]

So, someone who joins at 25 etc, for 30 years and retires at 55 etc can then immediately rejoin for another 30 years? Foxtrot Oscar..!

This is what is happening.

Meanwhile, I fly with long serving/capable passenger SF/O's who after 9+ years are looking at a very long status quo before command courses recommence. Nobody can justify a single extension (pax/freighter) in the current climate.

Sh* t can all extendee's on expiration of their contracts now. The training and line flying work-load on all fleets is way-down so it is time to get rid of the old extendee "fat-cats". Most of them are the worst checkers/trainers on their fleets anyway.

The "loss of experience" arguement is a joke. If you look at the experience levels of BA or Emirate's trainers then you would discover that the new generation of Cathay trainers are the norm.

It is time for CX pilots to close ranks. Extendees must go. If further cuts have to be made, then seniority applies. Last in, first out.

[Kitsune]

"It is time for CX pilots to close ranks. Extendees must go. If further cuts have to be made, then seniority applies. Last in, first out."
And if 49 of your mates are sacked for no reason then we'll .....oh sorry, didn't mean it.:mad:

[BusyB]

Don't think so Jonathon, most of the 55 yr olds only joined at 35-40 after military or elsewhere:ok:

[BuzzBox]

An emotional issue no matter which side of the fence you're on. Still, I'm willing to bet that most of the naysayers will change their tune somewhat when they approach the ripe-old age of 55.

Let's face it, at some stage we're all going to have to deal with this issue, bite the bullet and take the good with the bad. A retirement age of 65 is fast becoming the norm in this and other industries. Some will no doubt lose out in the short term with delayed upgrades, but be better off in the long term with the possibility of working longer. Like it or not, retiring at 55 is no longer an option for many of us, given the paltry returns we're likely to see from our P-Funds and other investments over the next decade.

If the past is any guide, it would be better to negotiate something with the company than have yet another 'improved' contract imposed on us.

(PS. I'm not 55, but I hope to be one day and I'm darn sure I won't be ready to sit by the fire with my feet up...)

[Humber10]

I'd like to know; - what did your contract say when you signed it? 55? 65?
- if you wanted a job till 65, why did you sign that contract and join cx?

It appears to me everyone was quite happy signing up for 55, otherwise they wouldn't be here. So what's the problem? Why are people complaining? Why would you want to work ULH till 65?

I know that 65 will happen, but it sounds like some parties are willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen, including screwing over their junior colleagues. Such a nice bunch of people we are....

[GlueBall]

Hey, capt wannabe Humber10, copy and save your posting and re read it on your 55TH birthday. :ooh:

[parabellum]

So, Humber10, if CX did something to improve your personal Ts and Cs you would reject it on principle? - thought not.

[yokebearer]

People there is only one solution no matter how many plans we come up with:

Age 65 for all with a substantial payrise on the FO scale to make up for earning losses/bypass. It is simple and avoid ten years of squabling about who gets bypass and who doesn't etc etc etc.
They could sweeten the deal by letting the housing run for 25 years instead of 15 to calm down all of those who will have to spend more time in HKG due lack of bases.

This should be the goal of the AOA.

[AD POSSE AD ESSE]

This should be the goal of the AOA.


Yeah it should,but for an organization with NO goals what-so-ever,you try and get that accross to them..:ugh:

[Baron Captain ?]

The only people that want retirement age to extend to 65 is the FATCATS on extension or FATCATS approaching 55...

CRAP ON ABOUT YA EXPERIENCE BULL$HIT

All you want!!!!....
Think majority would agree to leave it at 55 as it would bring movements for upgrades back to how it should be!.....
LEAVE

[scooby79]

I guess you will be leaving at 55 then.

[sorbo]

The ship is sinking fast - cash flow is running thin and costs are mounting daily. Anyone who is not 55 now won't be working for CX when they are 55.

[valhalla634]

So, Mr Baron Captain, it looks like you have included everyone. Either post 55 or coming up to 55. Perhaps it is because of your intellect,and others, that we are unable to act as a unified union.

[Max Reheat]

I'm now tempted to stay beyond 55 just out of spite!!!

[iceman50]

Meanwhile, I fly with long serving/capable passenger SF/O's who after 9+ years are looking at a very long status quo before command courses recommence. Nobody can justify a single extension (pax/freighter) in the current climate.

Not quite true Jonathan as some of the Command upgrades in the last year were SO's that joined in 2000. If they are 9+ year "veterans" not many will have had 9+ years as an SFO. Plus how many of the "veterans" played the game or did not bother about getting an ATPL because it would mess up their lifestyle, but still want a command NOW!

I see you have now joined the ranks of the ranting "sack the fatcats now they are useless and overpaid". Are we feeling a little vulnerable Jonathan?

As for you Baron Captain maturity does not seem to be your strong area.

[Apple Tree Yard]

...so, Baron, perhaps you can explain how/why nearly all the other airlines in the world have now extended to 65? What argument exactly did THEIR more junior crew use and discard? Why can all those other airlines 'get over it' and move on, and we can't? Hmmm, let me see, it's because you think you have a god given right to move me out of my seat and take it. Well sonny boy, a word of advice. CX is ALREADY a 65 airline ( in case you haven't noticed, there are many, many pilots here now working to 65). Everyone gets extended until they figure out how to deal with snivelling little short-pant morons like you. They will manage to do so btw...whether you like it or not. Try growing up...then you too can be a Captain one day...but not a day very soon I would imagine... :ok:

[Glass Half Empty]

Is it true that some of the older Classic freighter brethren in the left seat have been offered voluntary redundancy?

[yokebearer]

Last I heard they were still offering extensions on the Freighter - but not in the training dept. Go Figure.

[Thunderbird4]

Not quite true Jonathan as some of the Command upgrades in the last year were SO's that joined in 2000.
Iceman, Not quite true is it? I can't see one person on the list who got a command on the passenger fleet last year that joined as an SO in 2000. Considering they are now only halfway through the people that joined Jan1, 2000 from ASL. It will be a long while (read over a year) before any SO hired in 2000 is offered command.

[raven11]

Right back at you Thunderbird4.

There are Australian based F/Os who joined in 2000 as S/Os upgrading to Captain on the 400 today... as we speak.

[Thunderbird4]

On the Freighter. Not the passenger fleet.

[raven11]

Thunderbird

I'm not sure what you’re complaining about.

Are you saying that going from flying C-172's in 2000, to command on the 747/400 in nine years (or by your numbers ten years on the pax) is a long time???

Are you saying that if command now stretches out to 11 or 12 years that you, or these guys, now deserve some kind of redress?? That we're to feel sorry for you?

Deep down don't you feel, even a little bit, that this is an incredibly fast upgrade from S/O to command on a wide-body commercial airliner???? Was this really your expectation when you entered aviation?

If so, welcome to the real world!

For goodness sake.....I'm really beginning to feel that some people here have lost the plot!

[Avius]

well said raven11. Agree completely...

[Thunderbird4]

raven,

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm was trying highlight to iceman that SO's hired in 2000 have not been offered passenger commands. Freighter commands are available the day you join CX. Seniority has nothing to do with those commands.

That's all.

Issues and complaints that I have are addressed to my union not to pprune.

[buggaluggs]

Well there’s a arrogant / ignorant sermon from a cathay “sky god” if ever I’ve heard one! I challenge you to find ONE, current or former CX s/o who was flying a C172 (other than for fun) immediately prior to joining. Most of the guys I joined with had considerable jet time (and I’m not talking RJ) and the lowest time guy had 5000hrs turboprop command. All of them, bar none, had put in the hard yards to get here!

None of the guys I know feels that the company owes us a command, we’ve all been screwed over in the past (and no doubt will be again!) All we’re after is a fair shot! And by the way we’re not looking at 11-12 years to command, we’re looking at 15-16 + years to command! Are we pissed about it? Kin oath we are! Would you not be if in our shoes?

However, in my opinion, we shouldn’t be pissed with you. It’s the company that’s engineered the current situation, why? As always with CX, because it’s the cheapest option. The company doesn’t give a flying toss about you, or me, or any of the other staff!! It’s all about getting the job done for the least $$ . Thereby maximizing returns for the shareholders!! And if you were a shareholder (which you may well be) that’s exactly what you’d want them to do!!

What do we do about it?? That’s the $64000 question

And no Raven, I think most of us know exactly where the plot is!

Buggs out

[raven11]

OK Bugalugs...so now I'm an "arrogant/ignorant sky god". What an insecure and angry little man you are!

Were there S/Os who joined with virtually nothing but single time? You bet there were! I've flown with them! Off the top of my head... look at the LAX F/O list to find some who joined in the 90's with little or no real multi time to speak of. Or at the many who've recently upgraded to Captain who joined the Company as cadets....did they have 5000 hours turbo prop command?

Yes, there are many S/O's have joined with twin turbo prop experience. I acknowledge that, and many that I've flown with are great guys and good pilots. But...so what! You say you and your mates got your experience the "hard way". How do you think we got here? It's the constant complaining by some on this forum who imply that my mates and me have had it the easy way that gets up my nose!

Do you really think it was easy to get into Cathay in the eighties or early nineties? Was it the "easy way" back then? Do you think it has been easy to endure the never-ending degradations to our conditions and the pay cuts? The constant losses in court battles. The delays to our upgrade due to ASL (with no bypass pay)? To watch 49 of our mates GET FIRED! What pay cuts have you endured?

Were we allowed to go right-to-left on the 400? No way! Were we offered bypass pay to remain on our bases? No way! How did all that fit with our expectations? How does enduring all that make my mates and me the "bad guys" in this mess? The arrogant sky gods as you so poignantly put it?

And if someone posts that we got a few stock options in return, or six million Oz in the bank, I'm going to lose it!

Yes....I was very proud to get hired by Cathay back in 91. You couldn't help but be proud! Did the pride turn into arrogance? Ya, probably a little bit, and quite rightly so! I'm still proud to fly for Cathay!

The point I was trying to make was that, even for a Dash 8 pilot, RJ pilot, whatever, nine to 12 years to the left seat of a wide body commercial airliner is a quick time to upgrade in a legacy carrier... and nothing to COMPLAIN about. To complain about that, to blame and flame the extendees, to constantly crow about your vast experience, that is arrogance!

What other legacy airline could you have joined and upgraded that quickly? Name one!

Some people joined Cathay during a recruitment ban. Some F/O's take advantage of the different conditions to upgrade to captain early on the freighter (out of seniority), and some Captains take advantage of the different conditions to extend on the freighter. Who are the bad guys?

There are today, I believe, 28 different sets of conditions in the Company. That is the problem, and that's what we can complain about. That's the plot I spoke of. With that many different sets of conditions, only one side wins, and it's not the pilots.

Now that's something to complain about!

[leftof]

Well said Raven :ok:

[broadband circuit]

Tucked in raven11's post is this little gem:

Who are the bad guys?

Obviously it's the managers who are the real culprits here, and while we flame each other, they're making like bandits.

Focus on the real enemy!

[Five Green]

Raven :

You are questioning why someone might be concerned about 10 years to command.

I know that if you joined in 1991 and if you did not make command before ASL you probably did 10 years in the right seat (FO from Day 1) Those before you spent on average less than five years, and many of them are still here after 15 years in the left seat and now several extensions making 17.....20 years in the left seat on A scales. If we go to 65 soon they could see 27 or 30 years in the left seat.

So I ask you Raven : How long will you be in the left seat with R55 vs R65 ?

There is no way that anyone who joined after 2000 can hope to make anywhere near the kind of career earnings of anyone joining prior to 1999-2000. You would not earn that even if you make Captain in the next 3-5 years. It also gets exponentially worse the longer after 1999-2000 that you get hired.

Age 65 is a bad deal for any current SO/FO as it would mean you would make only slightly more money (in some cases less) than under the current contract (assuming people stop taking extensions!) It was a bad deal even before this current downturn. With the downturn it only makes the issue that much worse. Do the math. As you get farther from a DOJ of 2000 you will spend more and more time at the FO level. Our long haul airline can only expand so far. Once that stops then career progression stops. Add in the 5 year cycle of downturns and you will have a lot of career FOs. Adding in age 65 only means that they will make about the same as current contract only giving up ten more years of their life to get it.

I know that a lot of senior Pilots want to extend a few years. Fair enough, but let's not sell the farm to get something that for most Pilots (as SOs and FOs out number captains 3 to 1) will not benefit from. Do we really want to go to 65 ? Why don't we structure the new deal around retirement at 60 ?

When we all joined, it was a given you would retire at 55. If you wanted to work on, then it would be on the outside. Anyone who thought otherwise and is now reaching 55 (and I am amazed at how many do think otherwise) you gambled and unfourtunately your horse did not come in.

A contract is still a contract even in HK court's eyes.

I am tired of people telling me that I would or would not want to retire at 55. If I need to work after 55 I will, but not here at BBA. That is not the deal I signed up for. If , down the road the contract is changed I will re-evaluate. I can tell you this, every day I work hard on my arrangements for life after BBA and I will not let myself do 35 years of Ultra Long Haul !!!!! It might be nice to make command sometime before age 60.

Peace out

[buggaluggs]

Raven, if you had read all the way to the end of my post before you "lost it" I believe you'll find we came to the same conclusion, bad guy = CX . Squabbling, willy waving and denigrating each other is not the way forward. And serves no purpose but to further divide the pilot group and empower CX management.

Back to the root question, what to do about it? Is there a solution that gives everybody the option of working to 60-65, without stretching time to command out towards 20 years! Being that it's already 10+, I recall Crunchero has already looked at the numbers and come up with around 18years to command for todays new joiner!

Whats the solution? I don't know

Buggs ( at anger management ) :}

[raven11]

Oh Kitsune you’re such a riot. Ha, ha, ha, ha…

I have no idea what previous post of mine you’re referring to…since you obviously didn’t read my last one before responding with your usual immaturity. But I can’t help myself, I’ll bite, when exactly were my mates and I bent over? Was it during MSS when 49 of them got fired? I’m sorry we weren’t brave enough for you Kitsune, I’m sure that in the very near future you and your friends will show us what true bravado really is.

Are you completely incapable of serious debate? If not, then do us all a favour and just return to MSN or video games, or whatever other mindless pursuit you’re more suited to.

Five Green. Did you read what I said in my last post? Did that post read like we’ve been on a gravy train here? I don’t know what you’ve been told, but if people like Kitsune briefed you on our history then you’ve been seriously mislead.

Are you suggesting that those of us that have put up with so much for 20 years must now just suck it up and leave? All our pay cuts, loss of command seniority due to ASL, our friends getting fired, all our trials and tribulations over the years, we should just swat it all away and leave, so that someone who joined in 2006, who’s never endured a single pay cut or degradation to his conditions, can get promoted? Are you serious?

But you’re in the majority you say. So what! We were in the vast majority when ASL hit us. It didn’t mean a thing!

There are very few guys remaining who upgraded in five years or less. But to answer your question, I’ve been here for 18 years and a Captain for the last eight. Are you saying I should just leave at 55, with a total of 10 years in the left seat, because any more time would be selfish on my part? That I should just take your word for it that you will leave at 55? Even though I’ve heard it all before, but the honest truth is that NOBODY DOES! And neither will you. Look around you, how may do you see quitting at 55?

Let me ask you this Five Green. Have you even considered or factored that all those F/O’s who are leapfrogging their mates to take freighter commands OUT OF SENIORITY are increasing your time to command? If they didn’t do it (if they were more “brave” and stood their ground like Kitsune would) then the company would have no choice but to offer you a faster command…in seniority. Why no anger towards these guys? Are they not delaying your command? Isn’t that sauce for the gander? Why is it that only those people that “extend” are the selfish ones? Can you answer me that question?

Five Green. Thank you for at least posting a serious argument (unlike you know who) but I must say I’m tired of this. I’ve tried to reason and debate, be moderate and conciliatory in my tone, but I just can’t anymore….I suggest you read Apple Tree Yard’s last post for the hard truth.

[Dragon69]

Are you suggesting that those of us that have put up with so much for 20 years must now just suck it up and leave? All our pay cuts, loss of command seniority due to ASL, our friends getting fired, all our trials and tribulations over the years, we should just swat it all away and leave, so that someone who joined in 2006, who’s never endured a single pay cut or degradation to his conditions, can get promoted? Are you serious?

Poor little boy, all those years as A scale, must have been really tough! So much so that you want to endure another ten years of this suffering. How can a 2006 joiner even compare, they are so much better off than you.:mad::mad::mad::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[pretto]

money...........

[PanZa-Lead]

Kitsune

You are really brave too. Signing a sub scale contract to fly with Cathay. You are real brave...you took it up the ar..se from day one. least we held out a few years.

Raven..keep up the good work ...it good to see you bring out the hard facts to the children. Its a pity the fathers of the 'geek generation' didn't install some manners and respect and you have to do it.

[Five Green]

Panza : Drop the insults please and let's try and hold and adult conversation.

Raven :

ASL was a ****e deal for you and your colleagues. Having gone through a huge reduction in your career earnings, please look at what any retirement age extension means to current FOs and SOs. Also please remember we are not saying no way no how, but I cannot see that the Co. is going to come to the table with anything that would compensate. I still cannot see why they would when they have complete control at the moment.

As a comparison though, even after ASL you get 10 years in the LH seat. If we extend you could get up to 20. If we extend current FO/SOs will be lucky to get eight years in the left seat TOTAL. Some SO/FOs may even get more time in the left seat under the current contract. Seems hard to believe but the system will basically stop if 65 goes through. The only upgrades will be through expansion, and I think we can all agree that we will not be expanding again in the next 5-8 years. If it is status quo (and extensions stop) then those close to command could get in and possibly have 10 or 12 years (depending on their age of course) .

Having the majority of what prior to ASL ? Level headed diplomats ? What I mean is that we can talk all we want but this should come to vote (if not get ready to go to court!) and if so as the majority of our pilots will be negatively affected then, unless the compensation is interesting and fair, a retirement ar 65 deal will not pass.

I completely agree with you that those taking early frieghter commads have increase my time to a decent paying left seat ! The logic being that if somehow nobody took the frieghter commands then that would force the company to get rid of freighter payscales and give 747-400 commands vs pax and frieghter.
Ironically, this only makes the 65 issue more difficult as those that have not taken "early" commands will be more affected than those who did.

Finally Raven, I categorically tell you that I do not want to be working past 55. Under the current contract (you remember the one we all agreed to) I have half a shot at retiring at 55, if Retirement 65 happens leaving early will be more difficult to say the least. I certainly know a few who have gone at 55, they all seemed to have great plans and were looking forward to new things.

Peace Out