View Full Version : SQ Pilots - Give ALPAS Your View

19th Feb 2001, 00:39
I think that a new thread is probably an appropriate way to mention the upcoming situation in respect of ALPAS v SQ, probably to be heard in the Industrial Arbitration Court of Singapore, as intimated in the latest ALPAS communiqué of 13 Feb 2001.

To add a little perspective to events, readers may wish to note that, unlike in North America or Western Europe, judges in Singapore do not enjoy "tenure" - that is appointment for life but, like most people in the Republic's "meritocracy", have arrangements that are renewable on the basis of perceived "productivity/reliability" in the job. Readers may further care to deduce the magnitude of independence which the Singapore Judiciary hence enjoys in its relationship with both the Legislature and the Executive of the Republic.

Added perception may be gained by an appreciation that Temasek Holdings (Government) maintains a majority stake in SQ and that the regime totally controls the “union” organisations in Singapore through the enactment of no strike legislation and the activities of its placemen and puppets with in the “unions”.

To give ALPAS its due, the Association is regarded as something of a maverick in the scheme of things, continually agitating on behalf of “highly paid and privileged pilots” – it needless to say, being ignored that most middle rank civil service drones in Singapore receive a far higher salary that senior SQ captains for spending their days counting paperclips and evading accountability. These self same heroes were the recent recipients of a 13% pay raise “to stay abreast of the private sector”. Similarly, exceptionally highly paid Singapore Government Ministers were also the recipients of a very comfortable 28% pay raise, for the same reason, much to the muted chagrin and derision of a deeply cynical population and the vociferous adverse comment of the US press.

So, maybe some real politik is in order if the ALPAS President and the Executive Council cares to consider the merits of the following "win win" suggestions:

Call the Registrar, meet him personally and tell him that ALPAS will sign the CA on the absolute basis that it is dated 21 Nov 1998 to sequence expiry of the last CA on 20 Nov 1998 - entirely logical as pay is proposed to be backdated to this date. Otherwise, no deal. The Registrar will be powerfully persuaded that ALPAS is seriously intent on maintaining a "harmonious industrial climate" and is "going the extra mile" to attain it.

Explain to the membership that this is a smart move for all concerned - ALPAS, SQ, Singapore Government as:
· The membership gets the back pay plus a raise - the latter can be considered "interim"
· Goodwill is generated with Lt Gen Bey and SQ can advertise the new pay rates in FI in the hope of recruiting new "fodder" and can also move ahead with long haul operation of the 777, beyond the present 4200NM agreement.
· The Government can avoid the embarrassment of crushing ALPAS in the IAC for the world aviation community to witness.

Further explain to SQ that this deal will allow them to gracefully substantially increase pay in Nov 2001 (expiry month of CA) to further stimulate recruiting/stem resignations once the niggardly scale of the present pay offer is realised to have minimal effect on recruiting figures and to hold the substantial number of existing pilots who, once in receipt of back pay, are planning to resign/jump bond/not renew contracts. As a corollary the Association to start vigorous negotiation in Jun 2001 prior to the CA expiring on 20 Nov 2001.

Institute a system of proper briefing, consultation and secret balloting of members, to decide on future major courses of action.

Make sure that ALPAS secures the services of a competent and respected Singapore contract law firm for the next CA negotiations to advise on a complete overhaul of the present so called "contract" - the budget can afford this, just cut down on beer!

Explain to the membership that M de V will soon be gone and that there is a "wind of change" blowing through Singapore and by extension, SQ, as recently evidenced by SM Lee's acknowledgement, in Davos, at the World Economic Summit, that Confucian values perhaps do need modifying and that nepotism/paternalism now need to pass into history and, by implication, modern Singapore corporations require to emerge to the sunlight of real merit (not nationalist crony "merit") and first world global standards of openness and accountability.

Re-emphasise to all pilots that they must maintain a dignified stance and, hence, the moral high ground in a situation which will shortly see a corrupt, lazy and complacent "management" consigned to the dustbin of history.

Finally, condemn the execrable spectacle of gutless, disloyal ALPAS, SIP members scuttling around FCC like cockroaches, exhorting all pilots misguided enough to listen, to sign a petition unreservedly accepting SQ's derisory terms/effective date and shamelessly cutting the ground from under their elected leaders' feet! Is this the fruit of 35 years of national development? Disgusting!

To finish - ALPAS members - post a message on this thread to state your view - its easily and anonymously done and will give an accurate indication of the memberships view of this proposal. Then get on to your ALPAS President - he is your servant, not the other way round and tell him what you wish him to do. E-mail him this proposal, if you agree with it, plus your own comments. If enough of you do this, things can really start moving! Seize the moment!
FO's especially, you may be making the first move in the transformation of ALPAS from being a pathetic SQ poodle, breeding sycophantic nonentity aspirants to the M de V school of "management", into a proud and effective Association with powerful moral standing, able to safeguard the benefits and the welfare of all its members.

PS Danny/Rob. I request your forbearance on this one. Even though my article has an apparently "industrial" theme, it is still central to my absolute concern for flight safety within SQ. The present industrial impasse and corollary rancid feeling between the pilot body and SQ is having the most remarkably corrosive effect on the efficiency of SQ flight operations and requires urgent resolution before we have another disaster. I make my suggestions to so resolve the situation in the most powerful medium I know of - your web site.

Kindest regards

19th Feb 2001, 06:03
A remarkable show of courage, but be careful. Remember how the governmant in Singapore deals with dissenters. Industrial rebellion can come under the State Security Act; it has happened in the past.

Titan's advice to all Singapore Airlines' foreign pilots is to simply start looking elsewhere. It is very rare for a man to change his ways after a lifetime of consistency, and you are asking not one man, but a whole nation to change its psyche. This type of change takes generations to accomplish.

There has already been a mass exodus from SIA with the foreign national pilots, over 40 to date. Many were intimidated and succumbed to the Singaporean Disease - bankrupting people that oppose you. But those that have stood up and said NO! are still standing. Gladiator won, and there are more to come.

As for the local pilots, I don't see much hope. In SIA one advances by using a fellow colleague as a stepping stone and consequently nobody trusts anybody else. How do you fix this??

20th Feb 2001, 04:11
Over 1000 pilots in SIA and not one reply!
Is it because they can't even help themselves, or a result of the fear that pervades the place; the all seeing all knowing intelligence network.

Insider107, it looks like that old saying about leading a horse to water is true.

20th Feb 2001, 11:49
With the IAC looming on the 26th. I think many will regret the day they voted NO for the package.It is suicide when they voted out the CA , without an action plan.And now they pay the price of not being realistic about dealing with the management.How bad ca bad be ? only @your Honour@ will know on the 26th.

sia sniffer
20th Feb 2001, 12:14
Historically, the arbitration over the collective agreement has always gone in favor of Singapore Airlines, or certainly for the last ten years that I know about.

By accepting to let negotiations be settled by arbitration (ie by the Singapore government), the pilots union (sorry, association, no nasty expat coruptive voting allowed here), accepts that a limit of 6 months backpay is the recommended maximum that has to be assigned by the company. If the pilots had accepted the initial settlement, then I believe the whole 2 years "backpay" would be applicable.

So, when the arbitration reaches its conclusion, everybody's happy.ALPA-S negotiators because they got a few more peanuts off the company, and SIA as they dont have to backpay massive amounts of dosh. Bingo! What a hollow victory. Expat pilots,do as we have all done before, get the hell outta there!!

20th Feb 2001, 13:24

Established !
20th Feb 2001, 13:24
Insider 107, as a member of ALPA-S, this business of the CA, ALPA-S v SQ is a matter of internal corcern. It is nobody else's business. So why should you put it in a public forum. I'm sure you are aware that we do have our own private e-forum that is pretty active on this matter. There will be a time for this to go public. Or are your intentions otherwise.
Titan, as above thats why nobody participating in this. Fear? but Pprune is a foreigne site with posting of anynomity, isn't it. You are a case in point that anyone can post ranting rubbish.
0.88, the members were "not being realistic". But doesn't that say something. 92% decided agaisnt being 'realistic' and stood by 'principles' knowing full well that they may pay dearly for it. But we're here for the long run, not passer bys.
SIA Sniffer, and as a 'passed by' whats your interest? You made your choice, respect others. As I say 'The door is always wide open'.

sia sniffer
20th Feb 2001, 14:48
....and postings on the SIA internal "private" forum would never, ever, find their way onto a "public" site , leaked by an unscrupulous Singaporean f/o, without the consent of the instigator.Of course not.

20th Feb 2001, 19:09
Established! Your point has validity.

However, I (and I would imagine many others) have very few avenues through which to glean information on a possible prospective employer. So I personally find this public forum a valuable source.

So what if a little dirty washing gets hung out here? I can largely distinguish between hot air, sour grapes and real nuggets of information.

You will probably find that the information available here has contributed to the lack of applicants SIA has, which indirectly will further your very cause of obtaining better conditions and benefits for your members!

I would like to work for a SIA that has the reputation of a good employer amongst its crews. Until then, I will just bide my time, and follow the events on PpRuNe.

Good luck to you all.

20th Feb 2001, 23:13

You can run but you can't hide!

21st Feb 2001, 03:32
Established !
You just don't get it , do you? The big picture, that is, just like LKY intended.

I worked at SIA and was a member of ALPA-S, so I am qualified and "permitted" to talk about it. What you can't comprehend is that out here beyond the reach of the Lyin City it is a free world. The fact that you post here and is proof enough of your internal torment.
And as far as anonymity goes, lets not kid ourselves. These things can be worked out without too much trouble. Most of the regular posters here are known to the others:
"Lets see, Established ! posted on this, this and this date, and he can't have been these people because the roster has them flying or sleeping, so Established ! must be our naughty employee XXXX".

As I said, the Expats can look elsewhere but what becomes of the 1000 mice is anyone's guess.

21st Feb 2001, 08:11
Sorry but the back pay would amount to 2 years and 3 months at the time of the IAC hearing. If this results in us only being paid 6 months the Company will pay far more than that in the long term but they are too arrogant to see that. We are still earning less than we did over 2 years ago because of the enforced cuts brought about by the Asian Economic Crisis. SIA has already announced profits of over SIN$1 billion for the first 6 months of this financial year but deems it necessary to maintain the cuts because of possible future bleak economic times. Its just so ridiculous. Ahhh where's the scotch.

22nd Feb 2001, 07:49

I’d like to point out some errors in your thinking if you wouldn’t mind?
Firstly Pprune is not a “foreign” site – like every web site on earth it is “global” and everyone has access to it, unless blocked by government intervention, as for example in China. Being “global” and public, everyone can use it to have their say, whether in their true persona or using a posting name to protect anonymity. In the case of Titan and Insider107, I think the latter format is highly prudent in Singapore, when making their valuable inputs that seem to me to be completely the opposite of “ranting rubbish”.
Secondly, I do believe that what is going on in Singapore Airlines is a matter of considerable interest obviously to ALPAS members but also to ex-pats and to “outsiders” who may be considering applying to the airline for a job. Therefore the wider the circulation of information, the better.
Thirdly, was ALPAS thinking of the “long run” when it foolishly gave away the 6% annual increment to basic pay a couple of years ago?
To close, I’d like to quote part of a letter that I noticed on the back of today’s (22.02.01) Straits Times, from Liew Kai Khiun on being Singaporean:

<Finally, creating an “us versus them” xenophobic mentality [for example] through soccer matches or foreign bogeymen is definitely not a healthy and rational means of fostering a collective sense of belonging>.

sia sniffer
22nd Feb 2001, 20:54
The problem is that Singaporeans are so self centred. Contrary opinions to the rhetoric of public demagogues is viewed with suspicion. Denial, prejudice is rife in a society created by the teachings of one man.

Looking at the culture of SIA. As an expat, you are a "foreigner". Expressions unfavourable to a Singaporean or perceived as such, are dismissed as "rantings " of "foreigners".

There were a bunch of new commanders, promoted from the 747 classic who were known as the hitler youth. Their standing on the classic was as Trainig First Officers, prior to their promotions. As captains, they bestowed it upon themselves to agitate and cause disruption to the careers of many of the newly recruited expat first officers. The company knew about this, but allowed the captains to operate with impunity; their racial slurs born of their own institutionalisation.

"Singaporean values", the rantings of the avaricious many, gorging themselves, unaware of their own impotence.

23rd Feb 2001, 05:05
It seems to me that the whole "Singaporean Values" issue can be summed up as economic incarceration.

Extended families do not live together because they love each other. They do because the cost of living is so exhorbitant, and the wages so low, that it is a necessity of survival. This is no different to any other developing nation.

The "meaness" could very well be a product of their success being measured only in monetary value. This could account for the low standing of the aviation profession there. It may also be the reason why Singapore is yet to have a citizen awarded a Noble prize.

23rd Feb 2001, 09:11
You are right, from the above postings it would appear there are not enough noblemen in Singapore for a Noble Prize. Maybe someone there should strive for the Nobel Prize instead?

Keep the faith :]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 23 February 2001).]

26th Feb 2001, 05:25

Thank you very much for your wonderfully revealing post of 20 Feb 2001. I believe that it could not be bettered even if submitted as a spoof! May I therefore develop the themes that you have opened up plus those contained in other replies posted by my colleagues and also ask you to tell me if any part of my post is in any way inaccurate in respect of factual content or derived conclusion? Titan/sia sniffer – thank you very much for your support plus your spot-on postings.

Established! your first paragraph is particularly valuable for it allows me to make the point that if indeed I had submitted this thread’s original posting through the medium of the ALPAS e-forum and used the form of words which matched my true feeling, then I would be able to guarantee that shortly after publication I would have received a summons to 4th floor STC where an explanation of my feelings would have been demanded and, I’m afraid, being who I am, I would have stood by everything that I posted and gratuitously added further colour to my narrative. The next event would then have been a terse communication from the Department of Immigration to the effect that there now seemed to be a problem with my work permit and that I was, hence, obliged to leave the country in the next 48 hours. The effect on both my family and finances would, needless to say, be devastating but entirely consistent with the now enshrined methodology when dealing with any form of dissent in Singapore - for dissent read informed opinion that varies with received orthodoxy of both the company and the regime. As a corollary, if I was Singaporean or Malaysian PR I would be hauled off by the ISA boys with a view to possibly receiving psychiatric treatment.

Outside readers may be surprised that this sequence of events may be postulated as likely, following the airing of views, hardly revolutionary, in a nation which daily trumpets membership of the “first world” and exhorts the population to think “globally” but such is the feeling that it could happen that the all important “control” is maintained nationally through fear as indeed it is maintained within SQ, a microsm of the larger nation. As it is, my anonymous posting on Pprune serves to allow the airing of these views and, as the 4th floor would find it a little difficult to establish my identity, would be unable to sanction me – hence the all important “face” can be saved and my views dismissed as “rubbish”, so everyone is happy. As a footnote to this paragraph, my comments on “first world” and “globally” should not be misinterpreted. Singapore is indeed a miracle and there are many (and I do mean many) fine attributes of both the nation and the population, to be found on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the required tough measures instigated 35 years ago by the father of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, to form the state, remain to this day and have set their stamp on attitudes and behaviour which, I believe, SM Lee is now wisely attempting to change. As ever, smaller men are unable to immediately grasp the overview provided by such mercurial intelligence!

Still on your first paragraph, you mention that “there will be a time to go public”. Far be it from me to attempt an analysis of mind sets but is this not revealing of a long established culture of both secrecy and paternalism whereby a course of action will be decide by a conclave of cronies and the derived decision will be handed down to the masses and deemed to be “for their own good”. Again, I do believe that SM Lee is attempting a sea-change of institutional thinking and moving away from this approach, to one that encourages careful individual thought and analysis coupled with a framework that encourages the voicing of such opinion as produced by this process. You may be interested to note a prime example of this SQ secrecy/paternalism culture in the covering up of the fairly recent 744 stalling incident. Rumour had it that this had occurred on a Europe-Singapore flight following the ambitious climb to a far higher altitude than the aircraft’s current weight could sustain – I know it as a fact as a highly experienced friend and colleague was positioning on that flight and recognised the violent buffet and immediate sense of altitude loss so produced, for what it was. Needless to say, the local captain, who obviously plays golf with the right people was not required to account for his actions and the only way the “masses” were able to divine a possible recent event was by the unprecedented alacrity with which stalling exercises were introduced to recurrent and base check sim sessions and conjunctive, didactic buffet margin lectures were received from 12 year old SIPs to “teach” us all how to avoid these situations – OIC is that how its done? Established! – is this really the way we should be doing things?

Moving to your next paragraph, I do believe that my colleagues have made convincing explanation of the nature of web sites but may I further say that there really can be no such thing as a “foreign” site. It matters not a jot where the site’s server is – it could be set up by a Singaporean on the north pole but still be used by members of all nations – would it then be a “local” site or a “foreign” one?

On the matter of “fear”, well yes this is indeed a very important issue. Titan makes the point that most of the pilots would be afraid of making any posting on this site and expressing support for an obviously “ex-pat” suggestion. I would say, in fact, that the average Singaporean ALPAS member is frightened of his own shadow (I’m only half in jest!) – for all the reasons previously expounded by countless contributors to Pprune. The importance, however, is that this fear takes itself into the flight deck and prevents any serious challenge to a captain intent on pursuing a potentially dangerous course of action. All of which both validates Titan’s hypothesis suggested in your posting and makes a mockery of the effort and expense put into countless ARM courses.

Moving on, every FO I’ve spoken with on the subject maintains that, far from the vote (show of hands, by the way) being based on a matter of “principle”, it was one based on emotion and frustration, directed at both SQ for their continued and traditional obduracy and ALPAS Executive Council for their failure to fully explain the details and ramifications of the SQ offer.

Finally you rather cryptically say “the door is always open”. Well perhaps you should make it a little more obvious to all the ex-pat pilots in SQ – they have a collective wealth of both professional and industrial experience and can be of great assistance in raising benefit and welfare status for all pilots in SQ.

27th Feb 2001, 02:16
So what was the decision of the Industrial Relations commission on the 26th???

27th Feb 2001, 04:13
Epart Pilots in SQ.90% leftovers from other Airlines from diffrent parts of the globe.Either kicked out from their country(Aussie) or have left because of poor salaries.
Dont seem to be ever happy.Just pretent they have other options.BULL **** .Want to see how many will leave SQ.How many have left after all their threats. Not more than 20% will find jobs and for sure not better than SQ.
The salaries in SQ( Locals) is for sure even better than an Air Canada Captain.
Senior IP 25 yrs service(Sin $)
16000 basic
1500 Ip allowance
1500 meal allowance
2800 IFA
500 Market adj
950 Cpf contributation
16000x5mths bonus=80000=6600 per month
+20% Cpf contrabution on bonus=12000per year=1000 per month

Add the sum=S$30850 per month
Had the Ca been signd it would mean another S$1700
Total S$32000 per month LOCAL SALARY

Expart Captain 10 yrs service

S$12000 basic
1050 expart allowance
500 market adj
1500 meal allowance
2800 IFA
900 CPF contrabution
12000x5mths bonus=60000 per yr=5000 per month
20% CPF contr on bonus=1000 per month

total S$ 23000 approx per month
Minus I Tax 3500 per month
NetS$ 19750 per month tax free
US$11200 tax free
3350 housing allowance
2000 a month education allowance

Which Airline will offer You exparts or local that amount.So be SATISFIED

Korea,Tiwan and that you ONLY threaten to go is a ****ter and more expensive to live.and work in.
So dont BITCH

27th Feb 2001, 04:41

Hmmm after reading and "looking through" sneaky_cobras peurile and immature post it looks like it's game set and match to you.

Profile: "pilot" "ontario" "flying", really, and if that standard of thought procesess, syntax, english and spelling reflects the level of education, on my flight deck I want him not. :rolleyes:

27th Feb 2001, 05:22
Mmm....and there we have one Singaporeans perspective on the issue at hand. A minority view at present but prevalent in the past.

So as an expat Captain on the A310 I can expect $2800 IFA and $1500 meal allowance? Rather than start with figures from the glossy side of the spectrum why not a new A310 Captains salary and allowances.

Comparing SIAs salaries to Air Canadas makes no sense at all. Income is relevant to the cost of living. Singapore is very expensive and Canada is not. A more appropriate comparison, if you must make one, might be Cathay and if you insist on basing it on an SIA IP then compare to a Cathay A scaler.

Lets get this quite clear, SIA advertised for pilots in Australia and pilots responded. SIA took advantage of the situation in Australia at a time of need, much like now. If you have any complaints then take it to the Flight Operations Recruiting Dept. If you still carry around a large chip on that shoulder regarding foreigners, then remember that nearly everyone in Singapore is a foreigner, barring a few Malays.

During these testing times at SIA, I thought for once the entire pilot body stood together. Such diatribe as was written by Cobra can only aid the Company in their divide and rule policy.

27th Feb 2001, 06:07
Thruth hurts
If you go to Korea your copilots english will be worse
You arnt here to teach him english
here to earn your living.or else starve.Most with their second wives.
So try contradicting the salary figures
40% tax + Gst in your countries
Go back guys .You cant
Will earn quarter your wages

27th Feb 2001, 07:09
Snaky Cobra,

I hope you will improve your English or are you trying to smoke screen? Hope all local pilots don't speak this way.

As this is a global forum, can you clarify IP, IFA, CA and CPF???

Why do you draw a comparison between a senior Capt in SQ with a brand new expat Capt? How many Capts are drawing top of the scale, anyway? I believe the new joiner in KAL and CAL are matching the top of SQ local scale if you do not consider the variabble bonus. I also believe KAL and CAL are paying US$140-160 in overtime pay which is not factored in your thread. You can't match KAL meal allowance which is hourly based, hence fair work for "BUS drivers"

I sense that SQ is an efficient airline. Problem areas seem to be ops management, HR policy, cronyism and poor people management.

27th Feb 2001, 07:26
I think sneaky_cobra is a wind up. A new poster and atrocious english. If this is not a joke then it is the worst case of "Mahatir Complex" I have ever seen!

If we are to be objective here, then reading the graphs and tables at the back of The Economist is always a good perspective to see how expensive it is to live in Singapore. As of a few weeks ago it was more than New York.

sneaky_cobra, I like your sense of humour, however, if you are for real, then may I suggest you take it down a few pegs before your eyes pop!

27th Feb 2001, 07:32

Your arguments at best are very weak and I'm sorry to say you make very little sense. I'm assuming you may be an IP since you insist on quoting their salary figures and SIAs younger generation of local pilots are far more eloquent.

Mack Number
27th Feb 2001, 12:33
Sure Cobra.
You neglected to mention that any expat who joined SIA in the last 5 years isn't entitled to CPF. We get a provident fund (10% contribution from the company) which has managed to lose money ever since it's inception. (Our beloved DFO is on the board of directors,of course). No bonus contribution to the fund either.

What about the former 6% increment that mangement diddled from the pilots last year? I don't think a pilot who joined now will be making $12,000 basic per month after 10 years.(Maybe after the pay rise comes in-but we will never obtain the same ratio of pay that we would have if the 6% increment wasn't changed).

And management also moved the goal posts in the determination of how much bonus is paid (knowing there will be record profits this year). And the housing allowance is only 80% subsidy-so you have to pay about $12,000 a year towards your house. And the school fees have risen 30% since the last time they were adjusted, so plan on about $6,000+ a year out of pocket for each kid. And the lousiest staff travel in the industry, so if you don't live in a SIA destination city, you must pay for tickets to go home from the nearest SIA city from which you live. (Even though we are part of Star Alliance). And a car will set you back $85,000. And if you are not type rated, you must front-up with a bond of $45,000+ (depending on type).

Any more benefits which you would like to discuss?

[This message has been edited by Mack Number (edited 27 February 2001).]

sia sniffer
27th Feb 2001, 21:49
Cobra isnt rite, the paye that he qwotes is not aplicerabel to exphatriate.eXphatrate payre moste tax becaurse hees not a Singaphoranean, sous paye moch mores tax lahs.New entery Caphtains muches lesser thax thsaan locel lars . Hockien Mee f4or all exphatriate.

27th Feb 2001, 22:17
Aya ayo sniffer, why you so like that lah. Angmo don't say me that lah.

28th Feb 2001, 02:59
SIA Sniffer:
They say that cynicism is the lowest form of wit .......... but I beg to differ! Thanks for the smile on the dial.

Contact me.

28th Feb 2001, 05:08
Anyone know what happenned to the last "reformasi" movement?

28th Feb 2001, 08:32
It's 'sarcasm' that's said to be the lowest form of wit, titan. Cynicism I don't think would be classified as 'wit'.

28th Feb 2001, 08:34
IAC Industrial Arbritation Court has been put back to 12th March at Alpha S request, so yet another 2 weeks delay. Ido not think that anyone is saying that a S.I.A. Captain of at least 10 years service is badly paid ,providing current bonuses continue, but these are never guaranteed and I suspect they will want to reduce them at first opportunity. I know I could leave and get a much better paid job if it were not for the outragous bonding system. I consider it incumbent on S.I.A. to pay me market rates in return for this 5 year bond. I also feel cheated out of my 6% annual service increments which I thought were set in stone,but like everything in S.I.A. it is all covered in CA booklet hidden in some subparagraph on Page 80 or thereabouts!! If we do not get our full backpay then I think there will be an uproar of deafening proportions!! Watch this space!!!

28th Feb 2001, 08:54
The point to be noted in Cobra's posting is not the poor english, but he underlying venom. True to his name.
I would hate to have a snake next to me on a flight.
For one, I would not leave the cockpit at all. He also makes me understand the psyche of the man who put the SilkAir 737 down.

28th Feb 2001, 12:07
"Heard IAC Ops Centre is offering a New Package US$11,850/month paid offshore & Check Out Bonus of $3,600. Other remunerations remain unchanged."


1st Mar 2001, 04:03
One is never sarcastic in SIA; one is cynical. Its a survival thing and those that have walked the walk know the difference. But thanks for your concern.

8th Mar 2001, 09:55
Well friends there is no point fuming at cobra... his english or his level of intelligence. He may be one frustrated lot. He seems to be so ill informed about other fleet pilots salary and allowances. In fact the pilots who are joining now on the 310 or 777 are paid by SIA a pay even lower than paid in developing countries... like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and even Srilanka. The reason only Sia can explain. The profit what the company declare is part of ot by cheating its employees. SIA charges higher fares that any world class arilines on a particular sector but manage to higher work force (local or ex-pat) at far lower rates than those of the world class airlines. So it means most of the profit is out of empolyees' salary only. SIA knows very well that its locals have no choice they can not even think of joining anywhare else 'cos they are not allowed to do so. Ex-pats... SIA is not bothered about they are migratory birds and can not have impact on the local culture.


where flt. CCU-SIN had left 5 pax. and 4 crew members injured badly in cruise and has been nicely hushed up by the management 'cos one of their IP like Cobra was involved. On top of this SIA could not arrange even medical care on time after arrival. Can anybody comment.

8th Mar 2001, 19:00
Like I always says, "Lee con you".

12th Mar 2001, 19:24
Hot off the press today is that the next hearing by the Singapore IAC has been put back to 9 April 01 at the judge's direction, under a "two month rule" to allow ALPAS and SIA to start talking again. What seems to be the two key issues of pay rates for incumbents versus pay rates for new entrants plus effective date of the new CA are to be discussed again even though M de V says there is no further room for dialogue.
Will ALPAS give away the farm (as usual) or stick to the members' guns of equal pay for incumbents and new entrants plus effective date of 21 Nov 1998 for the new CA, following lapse of the old one?
Standby for further divide and rule tactics from maestro Maurice plus craven capitulation by the Executive Committee.

12th Mar 2001, 21:36

never thought local would be interested in this debate...

12th Mar 2001, 22:06
Quite discouraging, both in the assessment of SIA management bent and ALPA-S resolve in the face of it.

A hard line on retroactivity of a new agreement is in vogue at airline managements world wide these days, and understandable as tough negotiation tactics.

Common also in such negotiations are 'divide and conquer' tactics that attempt to exchange full retroactivity for incumbents with reduced wages for future hires - in this instance, an apparent effort to leverage ALPA-S to forgoe additional compensation and benefit gains for pay parity for the entire group in future negotiations lest they remain hopelessly divided.

Pay scales at rates other than parity, however, would seem to run counter to the greater goals of addressing the current shortage of crews and delay the achievement of sustainable staffing levels fleet-wide; exacerbate an already dismal morale problem; and likely 'poison the well' ahead of the arrival of a new SVP whose apparent task is to restore credibility to the SIA flight operations department after SQ 006.

Knowledgeable comment that will assist an 'outsider' in understanding such is solicited.

Thanks to all.

13th Mar 2001, 05:20
What started out to be a very good interaction and change of ideas was completely ruined by the article of our friend sneaky-cobra. I beleive that we should try to completely ignore these outbursts of stupidity and venom and keep on the ball with what we started. The experience from guys like Titan, Gladiator and others that left and got a good "outside" view should be used. If we ignore the obvious idiots and stirrers (hope this is English) this is again PPRUNE at is best.

13th Mar 2001, 07:55

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, SIA flt ops management is attempting to pay new entrants more than incumbents! As you can imagine this is having quite an effect on flight crew morale.


I noted with some interest, your contribution of 27 February, in which you mentioned that ex-pat pilots in SQ were “90% leftovers from other airlines from diffrent (sic) parts of the globe,Either (sic) kicked out from their country(Aussie) or have left because of poor salaries”.

Maybe you could explain to me why, if they are such a desperately sub-standard group, SIA took them on in the first place and why, if SIA excoriate them to the extent you imply, such a worthless group is bonded and bank guranteed to the fearsome levels currently stipulated (circa S$300,000/S$45,000)?

13th Mar 2001, 11:53
In my opinion I don't think the ALPA-S or its membership is gonna' get any thing out of the IAC. Atleast I have not seen in my little experience that in any country the IAC has gone in favour of the labour. Rather, the IAC has always favoured the Management. This is the trend in most of the democratic world. I don't know what kind of govt. rules there in S'pore, whether it is dictat. or democracy.
I feel the best ALPA-S can do is...
bring the membership together, guide them how to agitate, I am sure there are many ways to express discontantment with out going on strike.
Don't forget that your members controls more than 50% of SIA's operating cost interm of fuel. You can well imagine if the pilots' moral in SIA continue to remain at the "Nadir", in the days to come if every one decides to waste 500 kgs of fuel per day(which is not difficult), what will be the bottom line of the company. But this should have approval from the ALPA-S.
Secondly if ALPA-S can't agitate then it should accept what the management is offering to its pilots through bilateral negotiation. Still there is time and the management can be forced to come to the negotiating table. ALPA-S will do better by coming out of the IAC. The executive council in future should take its own independent decision and should not get misguided by any other coterie of people.

13th Mar 2001, 14:16
I write as a local pilot. Having followed with interest the many & diverse views on this thread, I'd like to put it to all & sundry that this is not the time (is there ever a time?) to play the local vs expat card. It is apparent to me that most posters here are, for lack of a better word, in the 'expat' category, and to you I'd say that (for what it may be worth) I for one have never played this silly local/expat thing. We are all colleagues within the same profession with the same standards expected of us irrespective of where we come from. And we are entitled to our views - Cobra included - but we don't all have to agree with each & every person here. I submit that in this current climate of mounting pilot/company tensions, the single most important issue is where we, the SIA pilots, go from here viz the court procedings. I do not have all the answers, but this much I'll say - charging headlong into some kind of self imposed industrial action does not seem to be the wisest of things to do. Singapore does not take kindly to things like this, & while I can already envisage a chorus of boos & jeers at me for adopting such a 'lame' stand, I hope many will be able to understand that it is out of self preservation that I say it. Many in SIA have the option of returning to their home country where, no doubt, there will be employment opportunities available to them; but to the Singaporean pilot, this all important avenue is not available to him. SIA management knows this & apparently uses this adeptly. So far, only one local pilot - a Capt on 744 - has actually left for greener shores (China Airlines). But unless & until this becomes a trend amongst even the local pilots, I'm afraid I don't think that management will take too much notice of the rantings. So, back to the original point - are there any less confrontational methods out there, which we might adopt to achieve the same goal of reaching a satisfactory deal with the management?

13th Mar 2001, 17:45

I agree entirely. How about looking at Insider107's suggestion when he started this thread? I quote the relevant pieces:

"So, maybe some real politik is in order if the ALPAS President and the Executive Council cares to consider the merits of the following "win win" suggestions:

Call the Registrar, meet him personally and tell him that ALPAS will sign the CA on the absolute basis that it is dated 21 Nov 1998 to sequence expiry of the last CA on 20 Nov 1998 - entirely logical as pay is proposed to be backdated to this date. Otherwise, no deal. The Registrar will be powerfully persuaded that ALPAS is seriously intent on maintaining a "harmonious industrial climate" and is "going the extra mile" to attain it.

Explain to the membership that this is a smart move for all concerned - ALPAS, SQ, Singapore Government as:
· The membership gets the back pay plus a raise - the latter can be considered "interim"
· Goodwill is generated with Lt Gen Bey and SQ can advertise the new pay rates in FI in the hope of recruiting new "fodder" and can also move ahead with long haul operation of the 777, beyond the present 4200NM agreement.
· The Government can avoid the embarrassment of crushing ALPAS in the IAC for the world aviation community to witness.

Further explain to SQ that this deal will allow them to gracefully substantially increase pay in Nov 2001 (expiry month of CA) to further stimulate recruiting/stem resignations once the niggardly scale of the present pay offer is realised to have minimal effect on recruiting figures and to hold the substantial number of existing pilots who, once in receipt of back pay, are planning to resign/jump bond/not renew contracts. As a corollary the Association to start vigorous negotiation in Jun 2001 prior to the CA expiring on 20 Nov 2001.

Institute a system of proper briefing, consultation and secret balloting of members, to decide on future major courses of action.

Make sure that ALPAS secures the services of a competent and respected Singapore contract law firm for the next CA negotiations to advise on a complete overhaul of the present so called "contract" - the budget can afford this, just cut down on beer"!

18th Mar 2001, 19:11
I’ve just had a look at the latest “From the SVP’s (formerly DFO’s) Desk dated 9 March 2001. In light of the up-coming ALPAS “Machan Kechil” slated for 20 March, I’d like to make one or two comments.

M de V takes some pains to point out that it took 27 months to “negotiate” the proposed CA – unsurprising for a master of obfuscation, confusion and, if all else fails, outright mendacity (all words correct, I had a good look at the dictionary), who’s unfailing tactic is just to wear down the opposition with continual repetition of the standard mantra “it’s the best the Company can offer in the circumstances” and “it takes two to make an agreement”. Does he seriously think that we are not aware that it is entirely in his and the Company’s favour to drag out the “negotiations” as long as possible plus keep any benefit increase to a miserly level, as (a) he makes his annual bonus for saving flight ops costs and (b) the Company keeps salary cash in its coffers as long as possible to substantially assist cash flow.

His letter of the 9th also says “informed it [the Association] that we [the Company] would not enter into any further negotiations with the Association because, if it did (sic), the Company itself would be seen as accepting that the agreed package was no longer agreed” No Maurice, you can’t have it all ways! There was no agreement for the very simple reason (which you know yourself) that the ALPAS President and Executive Council negotiated with you on behalf of the MEMBERSHIP. Whatever you collectively agreed between yourselves carried no weight in law and was only a proposition to be made to the guys who would have to live with it if they OK’d it. When the proposition was made to the Membership on 2 January 2001, they rejected it, hence there was no agreement (how could there be one without the Membership’s approval?).

Would someone please explain to me where the tablets of stone are kept that came from the top of the mountain, on which are carved the words “the normal practice of a CA’s tenure [shall be] commencing on the date of signing [of the CA]”. This concept is entirely spurious, has no basis in any SIA contract or other documentation I have ever been able to find (except “from the DFO’s Desk” ;) and has no basis in Singaporean law. I find it remarkable that the logic of backdating the pay improvement to 21 November 1998 holds good but the parallel logic of backdating the effective date of CA to the same day apparently does not. Can someone please also explain to me why this can be the case?

ALPAS President Mok. Please do not let the proceedings turn into the usual zoo on the 20th. Delay the beer and food until the boys have heard you out and have sensibly had their say, specifically on the effective date of the CA (got to be 21 Nov ’98 – you know it make sense!). Then have the vote followed by the PU!

18th Mar 2001, 22:14
With SIA now having played the IAC card, many people who bet their farm on the believe that this matter will not be brought forward to IAC (and hence full back-pay vs 6 months) by voting NO to the "package" on 2/1/01 will be less sure now.

Many in fact has suddenly lost their balls and gave excuses like : the REJECTED package not being explained fully to ALL the members prior to voting; The proxy system has failed them, they ACTUALLY wanted the (rejected) package but the person(s) whom they entrusted their vote(s) to in the last EGM has gone the other way, etc.

Did all those loud and emotional words spoken at the last EGM suddenly became hot air ? Are we now going to show the world how we can (un)skillfully backtrack on the overwhelming 92% majority decision reached a little over 2 months ago and gracefully swallow the "package" ?

I sincerely hope not, else it will make us look like a bunch of immature children. Not to mention the future ramifications that this backtrack will bring.

One last point (probably overlooked by Tosh26), from the latest "From The SVP's Desk" and I quote ".... we (SIA) could not enter into any further negotiations with the Association.... it (SIA) had conceded everything it could possibly could, for the sake of reaching an agreement, and to enter into further negotiations with the Union would have meant there was more that could be given. That would have demonstrated bad faith on the Company's part in the earlier negotiations....". My question is this : If SIA (and its negotiators) were negotating on "good" faith, why on earth did SIA increases its initial offer of a raise of S$150 (Captain) and S$75 (FO) from the on set of the CA negotiation ?

Remember this : together we stand; Divided, we will rue this day in decades to come.

19th Mar 2001, 04:50

The illusion that local SIA pilots are unemployable outside of Singapore is a cheap ploy by Management but unfortunately believed by most.

There are 2 ex SIA local pilots flying as Captains with NMB. There is one with Air Atlanta Icelandic another with Pelangi. A Singaporean is flying with Cargolux. A number of ex RSAF pilots are with EVA Air. The list goes on so don't believe everything you hear from the 4th floor.

19th Mar 2001, 13:22
Jobs available:

A)China Airlines
B747 Captains
A330 Captains
Soon to come B777 Captains

Give a call ..no harm done!!
Have another option in life.

20th Mar 2001, 00:30
as seen many times on pprune there are plenty of spaces avail in kal too.
there are several capt's there from thai and indonesia.
i would hve thought a few wud get there from singapore too at some stage.
i know in sia u can never get 10 days off(consec)or hve their(kia) kind rosters either.

20th Mar 2001, 05:09
If tonight's ALPAS EGM membership vote goes against acceptance of the fruits of the latest discussion between ALPAS Executive Council and SIA management, due to take place today, will this mean that SIA will be unable to advertise the wonderful new pay rates it is favouring us with and so further hinder its desperate recruiting drive?

20th Mar 2001, 11:26
To all ALPA-S members and SIA pilots:

You have two choices in life. You can be bullied and go cowering away to hide in shame, or finally get the balls to stand up to these bullies. Everyone says Singapore is changing and desperatley wants acceptance into the First World; show them the way. Look what was achieved by a couple of persistent ex SIA individuals with the three crew duty business. You can take on SIA and win.
This is YOUR future here. SIA management are bullies; they learnt it from the government. Think back to the schoolyard days; when someone eventually had the courage to take on the bully and punch him in the nose, what happened? Thats right, the bully ran off home crying to his mummy.
If you feel fear when confronted by them, try this little trick that someone once taught me ...... imagine them standing there in their underwear. Not only will it make you smile and give you confidence, but it will make you realise just what a PATHETIC bunch of people your management really are.

Goodluck .......... Titan

20th Mar 2001, 16:35
Wise words indeed from titan.
They may not appreciate what you are doing, but it would help them find their rightful place in the scheme of things.

21st Mar 2001, 08:53

21st Mar 2001, 13:20
.......... so what happened?

21st Mar 2001, 14:06
Looks like all the expart captains have left SQ.Where were they at the macken kachel.
have they all left the company for greener liner.Why did they not come over last evening to put in their bit.Are they contended with what they are getting?and know they cant get anything better any where.
we are all kept guessing

21st Mar 2001, 16:37

Have you checked on the exact number of SIA ex-pat pilots who are not in the Association due to the Constitution disallowing ex-pat pilots a vote on the composition of the Executive Council which will represent them, as against such ex-pat pilots who are members of the Association but who were rostered to fly yesterday, the date of the ALPAS EGM?

21st Mar 2001, 21:32
Sad to say, no one is prepared to bite the bullet. And these guys will lose all credibility by the time this fiasco is over.
Thanks again to the 'NO' voters for making history. No one will remember the little TITANS...

22nd Mar 2001, 12:10
Not too sure of the meaning of your post, however, be assured that SIA is having great trouble forgetting me. With nothing to lose and so much to gain, I have grabbed hold of them and will not let go. I just hope the likes of RJ, Freddy and Maurice are still mobile enough to face prosecution under Singapore law when their deeds are finally disclosed in the coming court hearing. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than putting those subpoened witnesses on the stand in what will be a most public and humuliating trial for SIA. The paper trail is too long for "I don't remember" to work.
Wish them luck ............

22nd Mar 2001, 15:17
For all interested readers, the present state of play, as very reliably reported to your writer, in respect of ALPAS v SQ, is as follows:
A meeting took place between the two parties on 20 March 2001 in Singapore, mediated by a representative of the Ministry of Manpower. Talks proved inconclusive and the feeling amongst the ALPAS representatives was that SQ (de Vaz) was uninterested in further talks and happy to drag things out (business as usual).
An Emergency General Meeting (EGM), convened by ALPAS Executive Council took place at 1830hrs on the same day and the Membership was appraised of proceeding events and the continued obduracy of SQ (de Vaz). It was further confirmed that an Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) hearing was now set for 11 April 2001 during which both parties would formally set out their claims before the Registrar, who would shortly afterwards give a binding judgement.
The feeling of the Membership is that they back the ALPAS President to the hilt, they further back the Executive Council even though reservations are felt towards certain Council members who are suspected of management ambition under the de Vaz brown nose advancement scheme. Further, they are determined to call a halt to the abysmal treatment meted out to them by SQ over the years and to take positive steps to improve their lot with a show of solidarity and strength. The President and Members are demonstrating that they have the balls to move ahead to uncharted territory and the guts to at last take on SQ with a will and agenda to win.
Hence, I unreservedly withdraw my previous imputation of ALPAS being a craven company poodle, run by an extended clique of de Vaz sycophants whose only concern has ever been to sell the Membership down the river as the price of their own personal advancement. I further apologise unreservedly to the ALPAS President, Captain Mok, for my equally erroneous implication of him being an inept “man of straw” without the courage or confidence to move ahead to an unprecedented IAC hearing and judgement. I was wrong about you - I am sorry.
In light of events, may I recap on what is all SQ pilots’ by right, not by grace and favour of SQ?
1. The dating of the new Collective Agreement (CA) from 21 November 1998, to sequence expiry of the previous CA on 20 November 1998.
2. Full back pay of salary, market adjustment, meal allowance and incentive allowance to 21 November 1998.
Remember, we are the guys who have done the work - we are owed the money. It is not a matter of SQ giving us a collective pat on the head and saying “aren’t we wonderful giving you this lovely big windfall because we are such a nice company”. The money belongs to us!
Finally, I’d like to mention a couple more points about the one man truly responsible for the present mess within the flight ops department and the present rancorous feeling and pathetic level of our remunerative package - de Vaz, our very own Dear Leader.
It was revealed at the EGM that during the first year of negotiation between ALPAS and SQ, no pay rise at all was offered by de Vaz and that subsequently the most derisorily and insulting pittances were offered during the following year until the intervention of Lt Gen Bey, when things moved suddenly. Readers may conclude these de Vaz maneouvres as entirely consistent with his overall strategy of delay and division to engineer effective CA lifespans well in excess of the notional three-year terms, with the aim of paring flight ops costs to the bone. He has been very successful over his 19 years in office and if consideration is given to his speculated present annual bonus of S$3,000,000 for meeting flight ops cost saving targets and if this sum is average over his incumbency to produce a total not unadjacent to, say, 19xS$2M = S$38,000,000 then it can be appreciated that he has done rather well over the years, at the expense of the pilots he purports to lead.
During a past meeting with ALPAS, the Dear Leader was taken to task on the subject of rostered days off/acclimatization between duties. It was pointed out to him that the computerized rostering system would throw up alarms if the legal requirements were infringed but that, on his illegal instructions, the system was manually overridden when required, to produce more “productive” (illegal) rosters. When challenged, his answer was “when you are running an outfit of this size, you need to cut a few corners”
I do hope that the survivors/relatives of the SQ006 disaster also appreciate his need to “cut corners”, when it is revealed in court that the captain’s roster had been similarly overridden just before reporting for SQ006, to illegally reduce rest/acclimatization and so become more “productive”

23rd Mar 2001, 07:44
INSIDER107 Again well said. I think De Vaz still has not got the picture.He wants to leave July to spend more time with his family having once more shown that he has screwed the pilot force,but I now believe the Generals know that he is the main source of the problems and he will be the sacrificial lamb but the heart of the problems in SIA lie far deeper than that one man, awful as he is !

23rd Mar 2001, 13:42
"He wants to leave ... to spend more time with his family" ???!!!!

Corporate speak translation ....."look, you've really screwed this up, now either you leave or we sack you right here and now and you retire in disgrace"

14th Apr 2001, 03:00
For all interested readers who do not have access to the ALPAS Collective Agreement (CA) Update of 27 March 2001, I enclose the following, verbatim (parenthesis are mine) <parenthesis is ALPAS>:

"For many reasons, the Exco (Executive Council) has been intentionally muted, as any information put to the members may be misconstrued as agitating the members or taken out of context. However, incomplete and inaccurate information disseminated by Management at various Company forums and publications has necessitated this response.
The Makan Kechil of 20 March 2001 was again well attended. There was general interest in the Court proceedings of 12 March 2001, and the outcome of the meeting with the Company on the 19th March 2001. For those interested, a verbatim transcript of the Court proceedings is available for your viewing at the Association's office.

As for the CA meeting on the 19th, the Company maintained its now well-publicised stance, i.e. the original proposal which was rejected on 2 January 2001 was still available except that the agreement would be dated 2 January 2001 instead of 15 December 2001 (surely 2000?). Without saying too much, the Company expressed their (sic) dismay at the Association filing Section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act. On our part, we explained that the Association's action was necessitated as a consequence of the Company's filing under Section 39(4). The invoking of Section17 was to legally encourage the Company to negotiate. It remains the view of the Association, which was also the view of the President of the IAC (Industrial Arbitration Court) that "… a negotiated settlement, an amicable settlement is much, much better than an order imposed by the Court"

At the B744 Fleet Meeting on 23rd March, the Company made it explicitly clear that with the presentation of the Company's counter proposals to the Association on 22nd March 2001, the original package that was to be effective on 2 January 2001 was no longer available. The full content of this latest proposal is attached for your perusal (separate enclosure):

The principal changes, as compared to the package that was voted out, are:

1. The exclusion of Second Officers and Pilots on Expatriate terms (classic divide and rule).
2. The sole discretion of the Company to pay new First Officers and Captains a salary other than at the starting of a salary range (i.e. entry at higher salary increment to feed new meat into the grinder).
3. That the Company has the right to optimise COP's to the limit of the AOC <we will seek to clarify item 11> (i.e. 100 hours per 28 days, 1000 hours per annum).
4. There is no mention of wage adjustments for incumbents (to intimidate).
5. There is no mention of back pay (again to intimidate).
6. The date of signing will have to be clarified (to generate uncertainty).

It is difficult to be optimistic under these circumstances but we are seeking the Court's indulgence in utilising the Ministry of Manpower to assist in reaching a mediated agreement. However, if by the 8th April 2001, the CA is not concluded, we are required to inform the Court and a date for arbitration will be set. We sincerely hope that the advice of the President of IAC will not go unheeded"

There is an Executive Council message which follows the above and is still dated 27 March 2001.

STOP PRESS: We have just received a response from the Registrar of the IAC and we quote "The President has directed me to inform you that he not only has no objection to your proposal to seek the good offices of the MOM's Director of Labour Relations to conciliate the matter, but he would encourage the parties to avail themselves of the mechanism set out in Section 20 of the IR Act"

As of the 8th April 2001, the CA was not concluded, therefore ALPAS has so advised the Court and a date for arbitration is now awaited.

May I sincerely request that any readers who care to comment on the above along the lines of "you should not be airing the Company's/Association's dirty linen in public", kindly desist. It must now be perfectly obvious to anyone with even the most modest of perception that we are now and have been for some time, dealing with an airline management that is out of control, out of touch with reality and "fiddling while Rome burns" and as such, this is a matter of the most urgent public concern.

One can only marvel at the management bunker mentality which perpetrates such as the above and which evidently disregards the vital requirement for an urgent safety audit post "SQ006", the collapsing morale of pilots bereft of credible leadership, the increasing bitterness and cynicism of members continually evaded by de Vaz & Co in their search for professional respect and a just settlement to the CA dispute plus the seeming desire to turn away desperately need recruits with their endless examples of an entrenched obduracy.

What can the Court be thinking of SQ as the drama unfolds?

14th Apr 2001, 17:04
There is an old saying that "for deaf people to hear, you need to make an explosion."

Don't you think that MdV and gang are not behaving like fools, they are behaving like idiots. I would put it this way that this can only be termed as a disastrous delibrate approach by the gang. I always thought over these years that every one who works for SQ has to put company's interest above yours. Sorry, I was wrong, now I feel that these are we pilots only, who have to sacrifice your own interest for the company's.

Obiviously, it is clear now that the above does not apply to the coterie of MdV. I read every where that SQ wants to expand. The way CA impasse is being handled, we feel that forget biding for Air India with TATA of India, they are not worth selling them the shares of Air Burundi or Air Rawanda. I don't know whether these companies exists in africa or not but even if they exist, they are worth nothing.

"DOES SQ WANTS TO EXPAND OR CONTRACT" what do the so called Damagers (Managers) want.

Is there any right thinking person in the hierarchy of the SQ, who can avoid this disaster about the CA or are we wanting more of SQ006 for which the MALT has been put for brewing at the 4th floor(STC).

When we have spoken to the local fodder also, they say I need to save my back side before thinking about the company I work for. What a sad state of affairs. Moral of the front work force absolutely at the NADIR.

May God bless one of the best airline in the world.

4th May 2001, 09:10
SQ pilots will be most interested to note that the ALPAS Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) vote of 2 May 2001 produced an 83% majority in favour of returning to the Company an acceptance of terms equal and not worse than the Collective Agreement (CA) offer of 15 December 2000, made by SQ to ALPAS.

Perhaps both parties plus the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) will be pleased by this outcome, given that SQ goes along with it - the Members, as they will now receive their substantial backpayent, the Company, as it will be able to advertise its new improved pay scales to attract desperately needed pilots plus operate the 777 beyond the present 4200 NM agreement and the IAC (for which, read the regime) as dirty washing will not now (hopefully) require to be publicly laundered.

Members may, however, wish to reflect that a course of action taken along the lines advocated at the very start of this thread would certainly have produced a fair measure of goodwill from SQ/IAC with acceptance of the numbers, which, after months of subsequent effort look not to have been bettered and, more importantly, this goodwill would have allowed all the energy and emotion of the subsequent negotiations and maneuvers to have been, perhaps, successfully directed towards achieving the much more important CA signature date of 21 November 1998, sequencing expiry of the former CA on 20 November 1998. As previously mentioned, this outcome would have had the merit of ensuring a 3 year term (rather than now potentially a 5+ year term) for the new CA, with negotiation starting shortly in anticipation of an expiry date of 20 November 2001. This would have allowed SQ to gracefully further increase pay rates in November 2001, following realisation that even the “new improved” rates were not assuaging the now publicly admitted desperate shortage of pilots.

In anticipation, therefore, does ALPAS have a strategy to counter the next possible move by SQ to boost pilot recruitment - either the payment of a joining bonus or pilot entry at a higher salary increment than first year level, both of which would be detrimental to the past efforts and loyalty of presently serving pilots.

Views on this last matter are keenly sought from ALPAS members.

6th May 2001, 22:32
If peace breaks out with acceptance/payment of the 15 December 2000 offer to ALPA-S by SIA will this mean that M de V will very shortly "have more time with his family"?

7th May 2001, 05:59
Outcome of EGM of 2nd May:

There is a mixed feeling amongest the members of ALPA-S here in SQ.
Some feel that the best has been achieved, others feel betrayed.
Many a time I feel is it really worth having a pilots' association in this island state. Earlier 92% of the member pilots had voted against accepting the proposed CA. 4 months later, 82% of the member pilots have voted for accepting the same CA.
It appears that these are not the members who control their mind and thought, actually their mind and thought are controlled by someone external forces.

Lot more is left to be answered like:
--- who were the people advocating against the proposed CA in January.
--- Who were the people came out with the thought of approaching the minister to resolve the impasse over IAC and CA.
--- who are the people calling for an EGM for giving the mandate to Executive Council of ALPA-S to accept the CA.
--- Who were the people advertising so vigorously among the pilots that they should not waste their vote on the 2nd of May. I have never seen such kind of compaign in FCC about not wasting your vote (not even during the elections of ALPA-S)
--- who are the people to gain the max. out of the CA.

It appears the whole game is stage managed here in SQ by few people. The members have no thought of their own. They all are so scared to air their views anywhere on the island. These so called people had created fear-psychosis in the minds of the pilots in January and once again in in May now. Wake up you guys have your own thoughts.

Understands that when we voted against the CA in January the "Generals" in the management thought the same way as if they were still in the armed forces and this was the mutiny and revolt by the soldiers. This mutiny had to be crushed and lesson taught to the soldiers for the days to come. Well they have done so and are victorious.

We all have sealed our fate by voting for the CA on 2nd May. SQ as a company has gained every thing in the years to come.
In future whenever new CA has to be signed there should be no negotiations (to avoid wasting time). The CA should be presented to the Exe. Council for signature and if not signed, you know the the shape of the things to come. So guys we have shown that we don't exists.

Its high time that the ALPA-S office should be closed down and we all can even save the membership fee what we are paying to the ALPA-s.

Havean was not going to fall for us if IAC would have decided the fate of the CA. Whatever stand we had taken should have been maintained. This would have been better and we would have remained united. Unity and integrity is paramount to the existance of any association. Now what have we done, for few thousands dollers, we have sold the unity and integrity of ALPA-S for the years to come. The world pilots' bodies are progressing from where to where. Let us look at our fate. Certainly this is no way to run an association. As it is earlier there was a divide in the union. We guys on 744 never thought that the A-310 crowd ever existed in the ALPA-S but now we have demonstrated that none of us exist. Its a total SHAME. The executive council of ALPA-s, we should buy them bangles and should hang our head in shame ........ :rolleyes:

7th May 2001, 06:22
Better learn your lesson quickly. If you wanted to be treated properly with professional respect then make sure the "Generals" and other 4th floor is given short, sharp, shocks periodically as is done in the other democracies around the globe. Than we have the guarantee that they won't ill-treat us.
Tell me if my work is being done as it is in a proper professional manner then why should I pay you a penny more....and why should should you get? So as long the aeroplanes are flying normally and we have this kind of ALPA-S we can forget of anything better. We have to learn the hard way that the managements of airlines only understand power, and unless you wield it in your favour, they will wield it in theirs.

7th May 2001, 07:46
Twitchy, I have to correct you on a few points. First of all Singapore is not a democracy or anything like a democracy, if you live here you must have noticed. Therefore I find it unfair that you criticize the executive council for what they achieved , negotiating under the sometimes threatening circumstances that are the norm in this “Democracy” must somtimes be difficult or unpleasant at the least.
The only way this council could have achieved something better is when they would have had a strong back-up from the members. An ALPA-S member stated on the union website : “ Only pull your gun when you are ready to shoot”. The problem with the members is that not only are they not ready to shoot, they even haven’t got the ammunition. With the members only firing blanks you shouldn’t be surprised with the results. I have one advise for you Twitchy: TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN!!!!!

7th May 2001, 10:50
Congrats ALPA-S. At least your guys get a meaningful payrise plus backpay. Compare that to another high profile airline, who got less than the inflation rate.

The "Generals" were trained in the art of war. You guys lost some ground in this particluar battle, but the (moral) high ground is still yours. SQ are going to have trouble finding crews, especially Captains, for their airplanes. There will be time to regroup and fight again.

Democracy is a hard regime, especially in Singapore. It takes negotiating skills, tact, unity and patience, none of which pilots are famous for. Hang in there guys, you will prevail.

Anyone care to state what percent you did get? Just so I can be envious!

7th May 2001, 20:05
Farside.......thanks for correcting me, its a dictatorship or we can call it a dictatorial democracy. But you can run with your money from here not me. How I wish we had wings like you.

L1011......the pay rise is yet to come. This will amount to 15 to 18% if and when it is given. No need to congratulate ALPA-S for that. The EGM (extra ordinaty general body) meeting, members have authorised the ALPA-S to go and sign the collective agreement as it was offered by the SQ management in Dec. end. This island, all the agreements are arrived at unilaterally by the management and later on pushed down your throat as collective/bilateral ones.

What happens if now the management does not offer the same condition as of Dec. 2000. Once again these people here in ALPA-S will have to call for another EGM and take the mandate to pick up the bread crums thrown out of the 4th floor. And we like beggers will pick up those one too as is being palnned this time.

What a great Airline of the world. They really know the art of sc**ewing its own people. And we all have to enjoy this unavoidable rape.


8th May 2001, 04:52
Sorry Twitchy but I have to disagree with you again. You have exactly the same "wings" that I have. The big difference is that at one point in my career I left my very comfortable surroundings to look for greener pastures , which I eventually found. You make it sound that only the expats can leave and shop around, but I fail to understand why the local pilots in SIA, who are all well qualified and licensed, have this idea (or is it fear) that they can't leave. Believe it or not but we expats also have families, we also leave home and friends, we also have kids that go to school, and we also miss our countries at times. And when it comes to "picking up the breadcrumbs" it is only you who decides to pick them up, you always have the choice to look for "bigger crumbs" and that is at the end of the day the decission that only you yourself can make.

8th May 2001, 07:31
Was is not two years ago or so when SIA gave the pilots a nice approx 22% pay cut?

Now an increase of 18% or so. Ah, my math not so good, bend me over please (not to get shafted), need help to pick up the bread crumbs.

Thank god I took the money and ran.

8th May 2001, 07:35
Some of the SQ local Captains would like to leave for those "greener pastures" but they realise that the Singapore ATPL is not that well accepted elsewhere. Can recall several that were trained in LGB on the DC-10 and wanted to have an FAA eximiner sit in for the final rating ride so as to be able to get the rating on their FAA license. Good 'ole Charlie Chan (anyone remember him) said a resounding NO. Without that "foreign" license, it is an uphill battle.

8th May 2001, 08:20
Just as uphill as it was for the 59 different nationalities with their 59 different licences that make up the SQ expat flying force. As I said before it is not that easy to move but it has been done again and again and again.

8th May 2001, 12:46

You forgot to post the Big Brothers of SIA. I'm sure they're watching our every move, but they (SQ Big Brothers) miscalculated the power of Pprune.

8th May 2001, 12:51

Hey what happened to your posting? One minute, it was here and the next is gone! Great posting, wished all members of Pprune could have seen the Big Brother!

8th May 2001, 13:10
There's no turning back if you do go, even after retirement because Big Brother (http://web8.internet.gov.sg/mita_sgdi/owa/pub_directory.ministrylst?agency_id=0000000014)is watching your every move.

Originally deleted (in fear of big brother http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif ) and re-posted again.

[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 08 May 2001).]

8th May 2001, 13:11
Sad to say my fellow flight deck collegues,
that with current affairs, we at SQ are looking at a total removal of CA in 3 years time. Especially with a flood of new management appointments.
Not impossible for management to do so and impossible for the "association" to stop.
far fetched?

8th May 2001, 13:23
This is slightly off topic, but WSSS, I can relate to that ... a mate of mine left Singapore some 30 years ago and he still gets called up for not voting in elections! And he's moved house about 6 times since he left Singapore and they were still able to track him down.

8th May 2001, 15:52

Your friend must be really "priviledged" because the PAP Govt says "voting is not a right but a priviledge", so even after he left Singapore, they certainly still want his vote. He must be the few who voted for them then. Every vote counts, I guess!

8th May 2001, 21:37
Nothing like freedom under a real democracy.

Reminds me of the moto on vehicle license plates in the state of, I think it is New Hampshire, 'LIVE FREE OR DIE'.

In early 1900s Singapore was the center for trading slaves. The West also made use of slaves, however, the West evolved. Lee Kuan Yew and his idiot son and Co. carry the tradition in a modern way masked by democracy. Just look at ALPA-S.

These guys make the mafia look like Disney Land.

9th May 2001, 11:22

I agree with your sentiment of 7 May 2001 in which you say that
“It appears the whole game is stage managed here in SQ by few people. The members have no thought of their own. They all are so scared to air their views anywhere on the island. These so called people had created fear-psychosis in the minds of the pilots in January and once again in in May now. Wake up you guys have your own thoughts.”

Unfortunately all locals do seem to be frightened of their own shadows and are reluctant to air their views even in private conversation outside Singapore, let alone in the Republic! They do love to hear the ex-pat view, however, and rarely disagree with it. So I guess it must be something to do with conditioning over the years, which time and exposure to global concepts alone will correct.

In the slot
9th May 2001, 21:27
Hello gents. Looks like "the expats" continue to air the grievences that "the locals" are too scared or too blinkered to notice. However, as in all disagreements, the extremists on both sides make life difficult for all. Arrogance on the side of SIA and greed of employees is a sure recipe for disaster.
To me, one of the most critical areas of discussion MUST be back dating of the commencement of the CA date. I find it disgusting that we have eaten 2 years into a CA which will for the convenience of the company be post dated so as to stop the workers ranting and raving for another 3 (but probably 4-5 years). I hear much support of the sincerity of Gen Bey. Is this justified or is his PR good. What are the "informal meetings" with him like?? Comments?

John Barnes
10th May 2001, 05:41
Having the pleasure of free Email here on my USA layover, and nothing else to do than looking at the miserable state of affairs with ALPA-S and management I just realised that the whole deal is out of the window again. One of the exco members stated that management is only willing to backpay from the 15th of December but using the signing date for May. How much longer are we goiing to be insulted and when are we getting serious about a solid reaction from our side. Or is it bussiness as usual, " PLease F**** me again, harder this time I love it!!!!!"

10th May 2001, 08:35
In the slot

You mention "Looks like "the expats" continue to air the grievences that "the locals" are too scared or too blinkered to notice".

I may be wrong but I think twitchy is a local and he's the guy I think you are refering to.

I agree with the rest of your post.


In the slot
10th May 2001, 22:30
In all the frusration of negotiating and waiting, check out the thread "how much did you take home this month" in the Terms and Endearment section of PPRUNE. Salaries after tax. Multiply by 2.6 to Sin$ and take it from there!

13th May 2001, 18:02
.88M You seem to have changed your tune from a few posts ago on another forum encouraging almost pilots to come to the Lying City for a 747/777/340 rating. remember you have to stay 5years 4months before you can escape and there is no early remission for good behaviour!!! With all these ex generals joining who have seen what a bunch of tossers the locals are who turned down a good offer {forSIA} with 2.5 back pay now down the drain things can only get worse as these generals start rubbing our noses into hole these locals have dug for themselves. They had no strategy whatsoever after getting tanked up on beer and then voting the offer down on a show of hands as to what the next move could possibly achieve. They now know!!!

13th May 2001, 22:52
The agreement signed during the past week includes back-pay to December 1999.

14th May 2001, 02:45

Just confirm. Is that December 1999 or December 1998?

14th May 2001, 05:19
I understand nothing has been signed yet whilst the Company drafts its response to the request to commit itself to resolve the many other outstanding issues.

Signing may occur this week before the Business Meeting so the Company can tell its shareholders what a marvellous job they have done dealing with the pilots.

[This message has been edited by EasyGo-Lucky? (edited 14 May 2001).]

14th May 2001, 08:47
Dear Gypsy.
My tone hasn't changed much, but just offering another view of a bad situation of employment. Mainly for blokes who have only 767 / 737 rating and wish for a 777/340/744 rating do that they can work else where.
Why not. SQ has been giving "almost" free ratings to all non rated guys for decades now. Cheers

14th May 2001, 10:07
.88M There is no such thing as a free rating. As I mentioned on another thread when SIA took my $46000 bank guarantee for an even larger total one I assumed naively perhaps that I would get a 6% service increment each year until I reached the top scale and that this was set in stone. I also assumed in my ignorance that as I was expected to stay for 5years after initial line check that SIA having taken all this money from would in return pay me market rates. Those of us who joined in last 2/3 years have been well and truly shafted as we have been in dispute with SIA over new CA ever since I joined and the locals who voted out the ratification of the new CA in a show of venting their anger with their Company should have known that whilst principles such as that whilst admired to a certain extent, lead to nowhere as we will all find out soon to our cost.

14th May 2001, 10:23
Correct, 1998, my mistake.
That part of the "agreement" has been shaken on, the rest is still in the balance.

Patric Ho
14th May 2001, 14:00
Rumour (very strong) has it that most of the 777 expats and a big number of expats on the other fleets have enough of the CA impasse and have some sort of very disruptive action planned with the help of some guys abroad who have been there before. What is the truth and when and what is happening or is it all smoke just before the announcement of the (healthy) profits.

15th May 2001, 10:15
Patrick Ho Why just the Expats??? What about you locals???!!!

15th May 2001, 11:07
Hey guys..
Today is the last day for the ALPA-S to sign the CA, if not today then it has to be decided in the IAC. Does anybody has the clue what is going on ? Thanks in advance

15th May 2001, 17:56
Rumour I heard was the CA signing will soon with an effective date of 15th Dec 2000. Back dated pay will be from the date of previous CA expiry date, some time in Dec 1998.

fire wall
15th May 2001, 18:17
.88 of a balanced opinion. My son, FSBoeing charged the experienced Captains who converted 767/757 to 777 for the Korean contract 13000 USD (21000 SGD at the time) to type rate and Korean has NO BONDING AGREEMENT....ever entertained the thought of why? Like why are SQ's bonding agreement approx 50 K plus 200K surety? Trust me these figures are correct as my brother is one of the lucky few who got in to Korean when the window was open.
SQ are dead in the water until they deal with reality....with the likes of "Lnd Lghts" and "Established" in SQ to be seen on SE Asia forum you are desined to head south for the count until SQ management wake up.....furthermore the renumeration for the BNE/ PER/ SYD basings are an industry joke and will attract suitable candidates. I pray another TPE accident is not on the horizon but you do yourself no favours attracting such low experience levels as a result of poor conditions.

16th May 2001, 01:34
firewall. Landing Lights is blinded by his own lights!! He cannot tell fact from fiction.

16th May 2001, 02:19
What SQ considers as "training fees" will include meal allowances and hotel costs of the safety FO whilst you are doing line training.
And under the company's policy, a safety FO is required until the trainee is "checked-out" for "solo-ops".
Hope this clears up the picture.

16th May 2001, 03:18
Training fees also include the cost of your uniform, transport from airport to hotel and vice versa when on a layover, the full cost of your air ticket to take up employment, the full cost of transporting any personal possesions to Singapore, all your salary whilst under training, all your allowances whilst under training, need I go on. This and much more is required to justify the huge bond.

16th May 2001, 10:14
Just to add in a pointer. Line Training Flights are conducted on revenue paying flights...

20th May 2001, 10:24
For all interested parties:

ALPAS Newsflash, 17 May 2001

“The Association has initialled the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Pilots’ Collective Agreement with the Company on the 17 May 2001. This is a precursor to the actual signing of the new agreement, which is tentatively planned for 28 May 2001.05.19

The commencement date of the Collective Agreement is 15 December 2000 and expires on the 14 December 2003 with terms and conditions being that of the in-principle agreement the Association had with the Company on the 14 December 2000.

The Association has received a Letter of Understanding from the Company pertaining to the other outstanding issues, which include annual leave backlog, roving LIP and First Officer pay scale.

The President and the Executive Council wishes to thank all members for their staunch support and encouragement throughout this long and trying episode of the negotiations.”

20th May 2001, 13:17
So, there is a very good news, indeed!?

fire wall
20th May 2001, 20:57
pls explain re new joiners

20th May 2001, 21:13
Fire Wall New Pay Scales which you will now see advertised in Flight International week after week ad infinitum!

4th Jun 2001, 08:23
Was I dreaming or has there been an agreement signed between ALPA-S and SIA on 28 May 2001, whereby the new CA is dated from 15 Dec 2000 and back pay is calculated from 21 Nov 1998?
Maybe it did all happen during a REM part of my sleep. If it didn't, does anyone know what's happening as it's all gone quite where I'm sitting?

7th Jun 2001, 08:15
High Cirrus. No you were not dreaming. CA was signed and sealed as you rightly reported. The reason you have not heard much about this is because the SQ pilots are feeling somewhat humiliated having rejected the companys offer in Jan albeit after large freelow of beer made the troops a little mutinous and I think the locals whilst well aware that in Singapore they have no chance of beating the system wanted nevertheless to show some kind of message to the management.
In true SIA fashion it was not long before the usual threats and bullying tactics started coming to the fore. It was suggested that if the matter was sent to the Arbitration Court which all along seemed not to want to get involved then any award would only be back dated to 6 months rather than the almost 2/1/2 years owed. This was enough to start a mad scramble to accept the original offer so overwhelmingly rejected in Jan.
Hence the reason all has gone quiet on this subject.

7th Jun 2001, 15:44

Thanks for your note. Do you know when SIA will actually cough up?

Regards cirrus

Check 'Six'
8th Jun 2001, 01:57
Will this increase affect the SIA Mauritius contracts? Or are they not included?


9th Jun 2001, 07:21
Highcirrus We all assume back pay will be in Junes salary but in true SIA fashion noone has the manners to keep us informed!

Check 6 It does not affect SIA Mauritius as they get paid whatever SIA think they can get away with and there is no pretence of negotiations as is the case in the mainline.

Check 'Six'
9th Jun 2001, 22:29
Thanks "gypsy", best of luck to all of you at SQ.


10th Jun 2001, 12:08
I heard it is coming in two lumps, one in June and the other in July.

7th Jul 2001, 07:13
Looks like you SIA guys are in for another round of aggravation from the SIA management, this time over the bonus payments which they now seem to be welshing on - as they usually do with anything that is apparently agreed between themselves and ALPA-S but which events subsequent show to have been forged in bad faith by themselves.

Will the CEO's bonus in respect of last year's execellent company performance, towards which the pilots made a major contribution , now be under similar threat and be subject to the same extended payment delay or is it banked in full already?

sia sniffer
7th Jul 2001, 12:37
Do you include the three pilots of the infamous SQ6 as contributing their fair share to the SIA bottom line? Whatever happened to my disclosure that ALPA-S was to "ask" its members to contribute some of their bonus to the families of the SQ6 tragedy? Seems that the Singaporean avaricious nature persists, even in time of genuine sorrow and loss of their compatriots. It would at least have been the decent thing to do.