Are all you people for real?

[mole]

I don't know why but I still keep reading this forum. It is quite obvious that the majority of posters are not professional pilots. Many of the posts are childish many are provocative. Very few indicate an understanding of the problems in this airline. Please remember that an intransigent management sacked 49 people to try and frighten the rest of the pilot workforce into submission. Soon after this happened management held a press conference to tell the world that the CX pilot dispute was over. Clearly they thought it was, we all knew that it was not.

Whether you agree with the recruitment ban or not, and I must declare here that I do not, you must recognise why it is there. It is effectively the only industrial weapon available to the HKAOA to force management back to the negotiating table. I don't agree with it for the simple reason that not everyone will abide by it. In a perfect world the ban would work, nobody would join and management would have a very urgent need to negotiate. I don't pretend to have an alternative, all I can do is hope that the people who run the company will eventually come to their senses. I guess the HKAOA don't have an alternative either at the moment, except hoping the ban works and talks start. Why are management refusing to negotiate pilot contracts? Quite simply because they think they can get away with imposing them. Remember this is Hong Kong and every CX pilot is on a three month rolling contract.

Why no upgrade ban? I cannot believe that anybody who knows the history of this dispute, and the labour laws in Hong Kong, can seriously ask this question. No fewer than 49 people were fired to make a political statement. Forty nine lives and careers were ruined, 49 families devastated and for what? To win an industrial dispute that is for what. Also, of course, because they thought they could legally do it in this jurisdiction. Now the HKAOA is supporting 49 families, isn't that 49 too many? After the first upgrade candidate declined his/her upgrade it would be 50 and before word got around that number could have grown to 69 or 79. This is why there is no upgrade ban. So why not strike I hear you say. Are you serious? Strike in Hong Kong? Let us say 70% did strike we are now left with 30% of the pilots still employed on the CX payroll. The company have already spent millions on wet leases so they won't mind spending a few million more. Now we have 1,049 instead of just 49. Come on guys get real and stop posting cr-p.

I think it is incredibly sad that it has got to this. If every potential new recruit declined it would be over very soon. However, some will continue to join and the dispute will go on and on and on. I do not agree with the ban because I know some very good people will say no and be disadvantaged career wise yet some total w-nk-rs may end up in our ranks.

Why don't wiz and alpha and every body else who so eloquently (or otherwise) grace this forum try and come up with solutions instead of the usual negative cr-p.

[ironbutt57]

Look in a mirror and pose yourself the same question....all of the folks who support your ban and decline employment should be supported by your "union" as well.....so are YOU for real:mad: :mad: :mad:

[RadioFlyer]

Those honourable men and women who have refused to join under the ban will have based their actions on personal principle and ethics, and because they know it is the right thing to do. You don't ask for reward or compensation for doing the right thing -- that would be like returning a person's wallet then asking for everything that was in it as compensation for the fact that you returned it at all! :rolleyes:

[ipanema]

Whether an organisation is management or union, the issue with priority is always credibility. If an organisation decides to stand by its principles, then it should do so. Being wishy-washy or going back on decisions sets a poor example for the Membership and leads to incredibly bad management for this and for future Executives.

Imposing a ban on new employment under threat of blackball and then standing by while there are internal promotions detracts 100% from the credibility of the organisation - for the simple fact that it replaces the employees who were fired. How can youn stand up for the jobs of 49 employees and then replace them yourselves?

You cannot have it both ways... on another issue, just how long is the AOA going to support those families, and/or how long can they afford to do so? How long are the rest of the Membership going to cough up extra funds to pay for 49 pilots and their wives to sit around waiting for an intransigent management?

Perhaps it is time to get practical and take a long hard look at reality. Perhaps it is time to find those pilots other jobs or come to a compromise with management.

But certainly things cannot continue indefinitely as they are... management has moved on and is still running an airline. Either escalate your actions substantially to show you mean business or get off the pot and let others find places without threat of being labelled scabs.

Actions taken so far can be viewed as responsible, but the longer it goes on the nearer it gets to being seen as childish pouting. For the moment the AOA action and ban means and affects nothing but other pilots aroudn the world in need of work - and that has a domino effect that affects all of us.

In the area of solving the issue, I think many pilots posting here are loooking at the situation from a purely Western point of view... right or wrong, the airline is still a company and an employer being run by management who are themselves people. Right or wrong, management still has to be dealt with on several levels and there must be some way of coming to a settlement.

May I suggest an Eastern approach (as opposed to a Western approach) to the situation? Only you on the spot can know what that entails, but surely it is worth investigating?

[maus-warra]

Perhaps those who accepted upgrades since the sackings should contribute the total amount of their financial gains made as a result of the upgrade, towards supporting the 49 who lost so much to give them their opportunity.

[Alpha Leader]

mole: are you for real?


Ask yourself: who are the most vocal advocates of the ban? Right: they are current CX employees, drawing their regular income.

And who is the ban targeted at: people seeking a job.

So we have the classic situation of "do as I say, not as I do".

Your argument about the upgrade ban makes no sense, either, particularly as you harp on about the economic and employment realities in Hong Kong (as in "Are you serious? Strike in Hong Kong?"). There is an old saying: "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."

The reality in Hong Kong is that for everyone, times have changed. Unless you're here for a brief stint, you can forget about these fabled expat contracts with huge apartments on the South Side, club memberships, generous home leave, paid school fees etc. It's the economic reality, you bargain for what you can get. If you don't like the best deal, look elsewhere.


Do you really need any more stepping stones?

[step]

Are you serious? Strike in Hong Kong?

Just for your information , the company which managed Tsing Ma Bridge planned to impose a salary cut to all(hundreds) frontline staffs several months ago , then over 90% of the staffs agreed to block part of the highway if the management insist . The dispute then ended by the withdrawal of the plan.

Of course the description is far too simple . But yes , strike in HK , could be serious . But since the union didn¡¦t step up the action/call for strike immediately after the sackings last July , you guys missed the best timing.And now , struggle to win;and those 49ers struggle to live.

Should look forward,not backward.Hope you guys really spend some time to know what¡¦s happening here in HK next time.I understand you are unfairly treated under some context.

[Kaptin M]

"Why don't wiz and alpha and every body else who so eloquently (or otherwise) grace this forum try and come up with solutions instead of the usual negative cr-p."

One suggestion mole, if I may offer it, is to ask the CX pilots HOW determined they are in seeing this dispute achieve its primary objective of getting your "management" to the table. It would seem apparent that the decision by Cx "management" to recruit with "gusto" is another step backwards by them.

However I sometimes find it difficult to believe that the pilots are syeadfast in THEIR resolve, when I hear CX flights requesting track shortening (eg, "request direct to ...") and/or changes in FL`s (judging by their tracks, the request are for more OPTIMUM levels). I fully understand that as PROFESSIONAL PILOTS, it goes against the grain to NOT make these requests - however, your "management" obviously considers you nothing more than drivers who are given a flight plan and expected to fly it.

Operating costs of large airliners are astronomical - forget about fuel - and by following the flight plan, as given to you at briefing, these costs are reasonably well budgeted for. By accepting/requesting track shortening/FL changes, you are providing your "management" with EXTRA money (saved through reduced operating times) to put into their war chest.

Worth thinking about?

[Canuck Pilot]

Curious if anyone knows rough numbers of those that have declined an offer to work for CX compared to those who have accepted employment under the ban. Just an honest question, not trying to stir the pot.:confused:

[&&&]

Lots.

[411A]

Notice how the direct question...gets a very indirect answer.
Still, just what you would expect from the HKAOA...smoke and mirrors.
How many upgrades (at the expense of the "49ers") in the last six months guys?

[41IA]

Not a fair question xxx...
Do NOT reveal the names of other users.

You should ask:

1. How many upgrades were scheduled prior to the dismissal of the 49'ers, and...

2. Why are Cathay upgrading even while they have been saying since prior to the September 11th attacks that they were more than 200 pilots overmanned?

(as an aside, since all 200 cannot exist at only one grade or level, one would have to assume a normal ratio of captains, Senior F/O's, F/O's and S/O's...)

Edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher to remove identification of another user. Note that this breaks our rules and repeat offences will result in a banning. :mad:

[Canuck Pilot]

"Lots" as in many have declined positions or that have taken postions.

[411A]

Like I said, Canuck Pilot, all smoke and mirrors with the AOA. They couldn't give you a straight answer if their life depended on it.
Do believe that the company has their number...and not much they can do about it.
California courts said by-by,
HKG courts...not interested,
and now the UN.....these guys are getting desperate.
They should all learn to sit back and smile at their bankbook...and realise that they have one of the better contract jobs going.
'Course, if they stir the pot some more, the company may just boot out another 49.
The stack of applications must be eight feet high by now.;)

[41IA]

1000 posts! Congratulations xxxxxxxxxx. Where DO you find the time? Don't you have an airline to run? Oh yes, I forgot, you haven't taken your pills today. I'm sure the doctors will understand.

Edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher to remove a username.

[Wizofoz]

41 Eye A,

Your response misses the point. The purpose of the ban is to put pressure on managment, but does so soley by asking for a sacrifice from people wanting to join Cathay. To have any credibility, the existing Cathay pilots needed to show a willingness to make at least an equal sacrifice. Following your logic, shouldn't one ask "How many new intakes were Cathay going to take", and then allow all but 49 of them? A ridiculous thought obviously! Therefore, the only strategy that might have worked would have been a comprehensive ban of ALL promotion as well as ALL intake.

[southflyer]

Wiz,

You make toooooooooooooooo much sense...

[shortly]

Unfortunately the AOA has a very poor history in regard to it's bread and butter, ie industrial support for it's members. Cathay instituted B scales - little effective response, ASL - ditto apart from vindictive and petty action against fellow pilots hired legally by the Company. I am afraid that as far as this union is concerned the horse has well and truly bolted. Bit late to close the barn door. The union seems best at pontificating and tin plating all ready well padded backsides. And lets not mention the disgusting and cowardly 'scablist'. IFALPA will rue the day it supported the AOA in their actions.

[41IA]

wiz, thanks for a measured response. XXX (411A) could learn something from you. Sadly (by his own admission) he knows 99% of all things already.

Please understand these few issues:

1. I support the AOA because they are my union. I joined, I paid my dues, I voted and although I may not agree with all they have done, I support them. They, in turn, will support me in my hour of need. That's what it means to be in a union. Good times and bad times, rich and poor, sick and healthy, just like a marriage.

2. The "limited industrial action" action that as a consequence, had the 49'ers terminated, may not have been a decision I agreed with, but it was carried by the majority. I complied. As a consequence, I pay my 5% to my terminated colleagues. It's the right (and morally correct) thing to do. To do anything less is to ignore my responsibilities as a member of the union. I will not desert my colleagues and friends in their hour of need.

3. The IFALPA "ban" is, in my opinion, inadequate. I agree that to be FULLY effective, more is needed. As a captain in Cathay, I am very concerned that the ETHICAL standards of our 275(?) new recruits in the future will be at question. The people refusing to take a contract under the "ban" are probably the very folks I DO want as my future F/O's. Until the AOA or IFALPA say otherwise, the "ban" stays in place. It is having an effect. The CEO has very recently written a letter to the AOA President deploring the "ban" as unjustified and incorrect. This would beg the question as to why it's being deplored if it's ineffective? Cathay recruitment is having serious difficulties attracting the right candidates (from an inside source) and are compromising on a lot of criteria, experience levels included.

4. The "scablist" is deplorable. If anything was ever designed to upset CX Management, this is it. With every addition, a settlement with management and re-employment of my colleagues is further away.

5. I want a settlement. I want my friends back in the ranks. I want to be able to go to work with a happy heart. I want to love my job again. Our managers can win a huge moral victory if they re-hired the 49'ers and achieve in a minute what they have so miserably failed to do in the past 9 years.

Finally, some food for thought:

It means a great deal to those who are oppressed to know that they are not alone. And never let anyone tell you that what you are doing is insignificant. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

[Wizofoz]

41Ia,

For once on this gab-fest of forum, two resnoble people can take part in a "Full Frank and Open" debate and (almost!) reach agreement agree.

Yes Bob, read and learn. If your intent is to make a point, you fail. If you intend simply to stir the pot, it says little about you as a person.

Back to the topic.

I respect everything you say, 41Ia, and agree with most of it.

But please remember, those new hires who have defied the ban where put in a very difficult position not of their making by a union who had (as these disscutions have shown) not done much to establish its' credibility. You don't know their individual circumstances and, in your concerrn for your and the 49ers (genuine!) problems, may have overlooked that there are lots of people in even more dire straits than you.

Surley, the honourable thing to do would be to admit "too little too late", encourage the new hires to join the HKAOA, and start again with an effective strategy from a position of unity. At the moment, you can rest assured that Cathay has and will continue to recruit a compliant group who owe the Union nothing but emnity.

Don't make marters, make allies. Don't settle for a moral victory, try for a real one.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

please do not concern yourselves with the new hires. There will be many more, I have four mates doing interviews now in Oz and will soon be up here enjoying the new job. I have met many new friends and YES some union lads who have welcomed us on board. don't mind the odd disgruntled AOA chaps but i think they are beginning to realise they are supporting a lost cause because i have not joined the union yet and many of the guys coming up here won't if they feel it is not worth it.
Cathay have been very good to us so far and have assured us they will not tolerate any discrimination. perpertraitors will be punished so play it cool lads because unlike me some of the new joiners coming up here WONT like there names being posted on notice boards and left laying around crew haunts - JUST WATCH IT - could be more than 49 if you don't lay off!

[shortly]

There have been some informative and pleasant posts to this topic. Even seems like grown ups have written a few of them. 41IA, eg, a great post and difficult to disagree with most of his sentiments so well articulated. Please remember what is said about threats they are always counter productive when used too often. I mean that from both sides of course. One little thing though, the new aircrew coming to Hong Kong for final interview are of a consistently good standard and those offered positions would have got that privelige at any time in my memory. Excluding these people from the AOA is only fragmenting the pilot body further and is not in the best interests of the AOA. Until it is realised that this 'ban' is laughable given the practice of AOA members accepting company promotion then the AOA will continue to look foolish in the extreme.

[411A]

The HKAOA has looked foolish (to many) for a very long time....why should they change now?
The CX management must be laughing...all the way to the bank.:D :D

[Albatross]

I agree with most of the comments here. The part I don't understand is that Cathay is hiring 250 over the next two years and say approximately 50 a year retire. So every year the union membership goes down by about 45 and the number of non union members in the pilot ranks goes up by about 125. It would appear to be the beginning of the end as in the not too distant future the AOA will be a minority. This seems like poor long term planning. And in vilifying there new joiners they will stick together and when numbers get enough, as has been mentioned before, they will start their own union. I don't know if the AOA appreciates what a miserable life GA can be, on the minimum wage working maximum hours in poorly maintained equipment with next to no opportunities to get out. Which is why so many are taking the job offer that they earned from passing the interview process. I am not saying I'm right I'm just offering another perspective.:confused:

[pilotabroad]

It does not matter how many have turned down positions with CX. What matters is that enough have said yes for all ground courses to be full this year and those now being interviewed will get start dates next year.

There is no dispute. We work up to 900 hours per year. We don't go sick. The roster is stable. The aeroplanes leave on time. What is there to talk about for the management? All one has to do is work the published roster, depart on time and arrive on time.

The AoA has been out classed in all respects.

The AoA membership does not have the resolve to strike or even MSS again. We come from all over the world to HKG not for the wx or because we like living here. CX pay well, offer good promotion and basings, are expanding and have a great route structure - but we are NOT a united workforce. Too many backgrounds.

The AoA is busting itself by blindly supporting a few 49ers who will never work at CX again.