Dear CX from NAM FO

[Vtwin]

The AOA writes: "There is a serious discrepancy between CoS08 scales and USAB FO scales."

Dear CX,

Since I cannot afford the serious Cos08 pay cut required of me to work beyond 55 I must immediately start saving for my departure. Unfortunately, I will be unable to participate in the SLS scheme because I will be depositing those funds into my IRA.

NAM FO

So how many are willing? Or am I the only spear catcher here? Is 49 the magic number?

[hobie5]

Looking at the huge discrepency of the USAB 99 and USAB 08 payscales as they exist presently I feel that I need to stay on COS 99. If the company changes the COS 08 pay then I might reconsider. Hopefully more NAM crew will consider this. A unified message to the AOA and company will hopefully affect things.

[Vtwin]

Whew, I got a reply, thanks. I heard crickets chirping.

[Sqwak7700]

Any NA based FO who signs on to COS08 is either 54 years of age, or medically retarded.

Let me see, yeah, I would like to sign up for a huge pay-cut. You are paying me too much money, so let me CUT MY OWN PAY. At least if the company was forcing it on the group, then you couldn't blame a guy for being under the new COS08.

I suspect the number of NA FOs signing for COS08 will be counted in one hand. And half will probably have done it by accident.

[GlueBall]

But after age-54, are we not flying just for fun anymore . . . ? :{

[PatObrien]

Sqwak, the biggest issue I had with the freighter contract was RA55. after 40, the ears start clickin' by 10000 fpm. Don't **** on guys for wanting that opportunity...do you **** on the current CoS 08 guys? If you have something planned after 55, good on ya - stay on 99 and the higher FO pay while you're an FO. But it's not like you're going to get a 20K salary reduction in year 5, etc (more like 3K). Look at it as a reduction in salary INCREASE over that next year as an FO (you'll then be about 6K behind the B scale). But in return, if you think you need airline work past 55, in return you get 10 more years at 200+K.

Nobody's retarded if they take this - and there hasn't been anything better offered or worked from our end.

[GTC58]

PatObrien

what COS08 payscale do you have? Considering basic pay, 15.5% and the reduced qualification pay I come up with a USD 7k-9K/year reduction for SFO1-6 and from SFO7-10 it is USD 11k-19k less per year on COS08.
It is around USD 110000 less for SFO1-10 if you are on USAB COS99 switching to COS08.

Part of COS08 is contradicting the Federal Canada Labour code (which regulates airlines) and if it is true that Canada is going onshore next year, COS08 has to be changed. Also, in Canada one employment group can have only one collective agreement (including one Retirement age for that employment group), which means if there is still some pilots left in Canada on COS99 a new agreement and a common RA has to be negotiated.

So there is a good chance for everyone in North America staying on COS99 to get RA65 anyways without signing COS08.

[Sqwak7700]

Nobody's retarded if they take this - and there hasn't been anything better offered or worked from our end.

I understand what you are saying Pat, but the reason I think it is a bad decision for someone under 54 to sign over is that it will surely come up again.

Think about it, it has been an issue in the past five years and they still extended people. If the company needs pilots, they will always prefer to keep one on before hiring one from the street.

You honestly think that this shortsighted management can predict crewing requirements years in advance, when they can't even predict it weeks or months ahead? Look at the crewing fiascos of Oasis and DEFOs. Not to mention that there are people still being extended during these supposedly tough times, what does that tell you about crewing once this turns around and we are growing much more rapidly?

All I'm saying is think about it. But I tell you what Pat, nothing that is rushed is good. Everything of these deals stinks pretty badly. And on top of it all, they have already started changing the deal as they see fit. :yuk:

[bobrun]

Part of COS08 is contradicting the Federal Canada Labour code
More info on that would be great. Which part is contradicting which labour code? Not arguing with you, just interested in knowing more.

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

It doens't seem like they care if any NAM FOs come onto the cos. 08. It seems to me like they were trying to make sure we don't. I'll grant them their wish unless they do something about the PAYCUT I'd be taking for years to come. I wonder what message it would send them if I fail to select any of the options in crewdirect and just ignore the whole thing. It would be the same F'YOU message they're sending me with their proposal.

[404 Titan]

Dan Buster

I’m going to be the devils advocate here but the very fact the company is now offering RA65 to everyone voids any court cases that may arise from “On Shoring” and age discrimination laws that currently exist or could exist in the future. What I am saying is that if you reject an offer by the company for RA65 now you can’t later claim the company is in breach of age discrimination laws. The offer was made and you rejected it.

[bobrun]

What I am saying is that if you reject an offer by the company for RA65 now you can’t later claim the company is in breach of age discrimination laws. The offer was made and you rejected it.

Sorry, but I believe this to be incorrect to a degree. Any contract, regardless of whether or not it was agreed by all, can't go contrary to the law. Signing a contract with age 55 doesn't mean anything if it's deemed discriminatory in the eyes of the law. It has already been ruled that age 60 is the normal retirement age for pilots in Canada, so you could have a case for age 60, but maybe not for age 65.

[404 Titan]

bobrun

I think you will find in most jurisdictions that age discrimination laws state RA65 must be “offered” to everyone which is what is happening right now. If you decide not to accept this offer that is your right but you can’t later claim in a court of law that the offer was never made and therefore you are being discriminated against. I can assure you if you try there is a very strong likelihood it will be thrown out.

[Ex Cathedra]

What I am saying is that if you reject an offer by the company for RA65 now you can’t later claim the company is in breach of age discrimination laws. The offer was made and you rejected it.

Interesting point.

But in rejecting COS08, I don't think that it can be proven that you are rejecting RA65, as this is not the only change from your current contract. You are merely rejecting the offer and conditions which you would have had to accept to obtain RA65... If working until 65 is going to be the law and your right, then CX can't make that right conditional.

I think that makes sense... dunnit?

[FOCX]

404Titan,

Yes, but they are offering RA65 with a pay cut, that is discrimination. I doubt a US lawyer would agree with you legal opinion.

[404 Titan]

Ex Cathedra

That will be your only defence, i.e. I wanted RA65 when the company offered it in April 2009 but the significant pay cut required to change contracts was unacceptable to me and my family and I told the company this in a signed letter sent to them on the 30th April 2009.

FOCX

Not offering you RA65 is discrimination. Offering you a contract with RA65 but on lower pay that starts the day the contract starts is industrial bustardry but isn’t discrimination. You could argue though that it is discrimination if the pay cut occurred on you 55th birthday.

[FOCX]

Ttian, I'm no lawyer, but having consulted a mate who is, said that in most western countries to offer lesser conditions based on age would be viewed as discrimination. The offer is to take a pay cut for the right to work past 55. From what I can understand they'll get away with that in HK, but not many other places.

[404 Titan]

FOCX
in most western countries to offer lesser conditions based on age would be viewed as discrimination.
The point is they’re not. Make no mistake I don’t agree with the lower pay some may face if they go to COS08. The reality is the company will argue in any court that they have given every pilot a chance to work until 65. The fact that the COS08 pay scales are lower in some jurisdictions is irrelevant to any age discrimination laws unless that pay cut is tide to a particular age. With the exception of “A” scales past 55, I can’t see anywhere where they are.

[VR-HFX]

404

A worthy point to raise however the two issues are just that in a legal sense and would be treated so in any court with a common law system.

A conditional offer of RA65 would not stand as an offer in any subsequent challenge.

[404 Titan]

VR-HFX

If you are saying COS08 is conditional on taking SLS in some cases I would agree with you and you may have a case. If you are saying RA65 is conditional on the new pay scales I would have to disagree. RA65 is just a part of COS08 as is the pay scales and every other aspect of the contract. There is nothing there that is conditional. You either accept COS08 warts and all or you don’t.

[VR-HFX]

404

Sorry mate, I wasn't clear. Basically the SLS is another issue altogether. So in essence there are three being wrapped in one unholy proposal.

What I was alluding to is that by putting RA65 and a change in COS into one package it will pollute any subsequent challenge regarding RA65.

I don't know who is providing legal advice to CX at this point, JS&M or Deacons but I would suggest an upgrade to someone who doesn't want to live on fees but get solutions.

[404 Titan]

VR-HFX

No problem. As you said having RA65 in with COS08 does pollute any argument one has and if you tried to convince a judge that they should be separate issues all the company will do is argue that RA55 is in COS99 so what is the difference here. It is a very difficult argument to make and one I would say is impossible to win. Crazier things have happened though and I could be wrong.:ok: