Pilots win retirement age appeal

[ozziekiwi]

Pilots win retirement age appeal - 13-Sep-2017 - NZ Living & Travel news (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=255554)

Well Done !!!!!

[cxorcist]

Pilots win retirement age appeal - 13-Sep-2017 - NZ Living & Travel news (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=255554)

Well Done !!!!!

Does this mean they will receive "A" scale to 65?

[Trafalgar]

I hope so....and why shouldn't they?

[cxorcist]

I hope so....and why shouldn't they?

Oh, they definitely should, as should the Canadian A scalers past 60.

[Trafalgar]

agreed......

[Xwindldg]

Final nail in the coffin for new bases then. Love how these guys took a base knowing exactly what the terms of the contract were, now they do this and give a big f### you to anyone else who might have wanted a base one day.

[Trafalgar]

....but the 'terms' were illegal. Is it so wrong for CX to be held to legal account, in every jurisdiction? What about the principle that a country can't 'suspend' the laws for one employer (a precedent like the CX original contract conflicts with what other NZ employers have to abide by). Sorry, I know it makes the issue of bases difficult, but only to a venal, corrupt and malicious management. A management with integrity would structure the bases legally, properly and with a sustainable structure. CX of course preferred to do it 'their' way...hence dozens of lawsuits over the years.

[cxorcist]

Final nail in the coffin for new bases then. Love how these guys took a base knowing exactly what the terms of the contract were, now they do this and give a big f### you to anyone else who might have wanted a base one day.

Why would an old, about to retire, A scaler be a deterrent to new bases? The new based pilots would not be on A scale. What you're saying makes no sense.

In the US, things are a quite a bit different. The legality of the old CoS and even the new CBA are being called into question. Quite literally, the future of the bases, at least in CA, are in jeopardy. There will be no new base slots in CA, or probably even other non-CA bases, until the issues are resolved.

[Shep69]

Final nail in the coffin for new bases then. Love how these guys took a base knowing exactly what the terms of the contract were, now they do this and give a big f### you to anyone else who might have wanted a base one day.

So, I guess according to your paradigm it'd be OK for the company to have incorporated the clause "If it can be proven you are solely of Caucasian descent you will be terminated" in the COS on the base.

Or later impose this into a new COS.

And perhaps they COULD do that in their little bubble.

But the nations with whom they might want to do business may have a different opinion--and say simply "if you want to do business with our nation and within our nation you will comply with our law." As several nations have done. If the company chooses to break the law it suffers the consequences of so doing.

Just like a bank robber suffers the consequences of HIS actions.

As far as your apparent Stockholm Syndrome no dice. Dividing the pilot group up and trying to have them place blame within different factions has largely resulted in the declining COSs everyone has seen to date. Everyone knows who is to blame. And everyone knows that we've not seen the company even keeping up with attrition on ANY base--just a fleeting carrot for the easily duped.

[1200firm]

There will be no new bases offered anywhere ever again. Bases are dead.

[Trafalgar]

Shep, exactly, and well explained. This company has been playing fast and loose with laws all around the world, and in HK they know it's effectively 'lawless' so that explains why they continue to get away with their antics there. Either the pilots group(s) unite and stand as one together against this mob, or we will all collapse and die separately. To the US, Canadian, Europe and Aus based pilots, I say to you all.....wake up to what is really going on here. If the HKAOA agrees to take strong industrial action (and you all know what I mean), then we must ALL support that, as eventually they will come after the bases as well. TIME TO WAKE UP. Only we, collectively, can stop the rot. Now is the time.

[Trafalgar]

All the Associations need to issue a joint letter stating that the concerns of ANY base, including HK, are of importance and threat to EVERY base area, and that we will all support each other in any particular industrial situation. I realise there are contractual and legal issues to overcome, but now is the time to start developing a joint strategy.

[Xwindldg]

Trafalgar, Shep,

Will this ruling make the company want to open up more bases?

What was the retirement age on the contract these guys signed originally?

Why weren't they up in arms when the guys ahead of them had to retire at their contractually agreed age?

[Trafalgar]

Perhaps not. Doesn't change the fact that CX can't just decide to make up their own rules. Bases save CX millions, and that is even with them ADHERING to the laws of the land. They just don't like doing things legally and fairly. It's in their nature. Think of the nature of a snake or a scorpion (apologies to both species), they are what they are....as are the Swine's. They try it on, hope they get away with it, and when they don't, they lash out against the only entity they can really hurt, their own employees. Nice aren't they? Don't try and excuse their abhorrent behaviour. CX are the problem, not the employees who wanted to be treated legally. Just because they agreed to an 'illegal' contract doesn't mean the rest of NZ has to allow it.

[FreemaninHK]

There will be bases again.

When we walk.

Raises will come.

When we walk.

Anna will be 'promoted" to another role (like Ivan)

When we walk.

and that is going to have to happen sooner than later.

Swine Boss Hogg' is going to be shown.

Please no replies about lack of unity or no one liking expats, that talk isn't helpful.
If you feel that way go into your own corner and sulk.

It's time for all of us to stand up like the Kiwis.

#timetostrike

[raven11]

No bases are not dead. Not officially...

Instead, like the potential for profit share, a future base will be dangled like a carrot for only those that sign the new deal. The threat will be: only if you sign the new COS can you be eligible for a future base ("when they are offered"). If you don't sign you will never be "offered" a future base (you and your current COS will "wither on the vine" in Hong Kong...or words to that effect).

Oh, and if you sign the new deal you will be eligible for future profit share.....if you don't sign...no future profit share for you.

Furthermore, the 13th month bonus will be included in the new reduced pay package. Just like it was in 1999 on the bases. Only in Cathay do they call a pay cut a bonus....

They've done this all before. The only difference this time is that they are heralding the fact that we can do this in a collaborative fashion by taking a seat at the High Performance Engagement table....

The HKAOA needs to walk away from this farce, retain CC and the TB, and come back in two years.

[mngmt mole]

Just read the finding in it's entirety. Only a CX lawyer could have believed they would have stood a chance of winning. Well done to the two plaintiffs. Nice to see them take on the 'beast' and prevail. Sadly, CX will not now accept that treating employees fairly in the first place would be the better corporate policy. They will convince themselves that they have to 'strike' back. Pathetic, they always have been and they always will be. They make bankers look good.

[Will IB Fayed]

So do they (or any kiwi) now have a compulsory retirement age???

[Bob Hawke]

That Frank, is how they work.

[Arfur Dent]

I wonder if anyone knows of a Company more involved in law suits against its own employees than Cathay - a once great Airline in complete harmony with it's people? What an utter disgrace they are to any concept of Corporate Governance. As a retiree I now fly with BA when vacationing because I simply can't bear the thought of even remotely contributing to the CX precious "bottom line". Don't be afraid of leaving this sinking ship - there is a good life after Cathay and, if you've got some time in and have a few assets and your kids are grown up, don't tolerate their crap any longer than you need to.
As Trafalger said, the culture at CX is venal and corrosive - don't let them spoil your happiness.
Well done to the Kiwis - what happens to them now?? Reinstatement?? That'll be fun.

[ozziekiwi]

So do they (or any kiwi) now have a compulsory retirement age???

No there is no compulsory retirement age in NZ it is against the law for any employer to discriminate on age


Ozziekiwi

[Xwindldg]

That's brilliant! Well done boys, I'm sure there will be lots of NZ slots opening in the very near future. Watch this space for OZ to follow suit with a similar court case..... "I'm ok Jack" comes to mind.

[Avinthenews]

That's brilliant! Well done boys, I'm sure there will be lots of NZ slots opening in the very near future. Watch this space for OZ to follow suit with a similar court case..... "I'm ok Jack" comes to mind.

Pot, kettle, black comes to mind.

Poor young Xwind, can't serve his own needs by signing an inferior contract to circumvent the law.

Some people just don't get it nor ever will apparently :ugh:

[controlledrest]

It is important to remember that this whole mess is because of the way the management elect to manage.

If they really want to gain productively (cost per unit of work performed by employee) then at least halve the pilots should be based - at least from what I hear Jepp have been saying. Will CX do that?.....maybe. But it would mean complying with 1st world laws, not something the Swire pricks like to do.

[controlledrest]

No there is no compulsory retirement age in NZ it is against the law for any employer to discriminate on age


Ozziekiwi

Agreed, but part of the requirement for continued employment as a pilot is to hold a valid licence. The medical forms part of the licence and HKG CAA won;t issue a Class 1 past 65. So in effect retirement does occur at 65.

[controlledrest]

That's brilliant! Well done boys, I'm sure there will be lots of NZ slots opening in the very near future. Watch this space for OZ to follow suit with a similar court case..... "I'm ok Jack" comes to mind.

Oz is on-shored already. What court case is to follow? You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what is happening in the real world. Maybe too much hair gel.

[Xwindldg]

I agree it's good to get a win over the company but those NZ guys had the chance to sign over but they didn't and agreed to leave at 55 as per the original contract. Now they've been given permission to break that contract and it will probably f### anyone else wanting a base.

[Pomerian]

I agree it's good to get a win over the company but those NZ guys had the chance to sign over but they didn't and agreed to leave at 55 as per the original contract. Now they've been given permission to break that contract and it will probably f### anyone else wanting a base.

why people love to blame the victims?
who is the one breaking the law? who's to be blamed to break the law?
If there is a fault in the contract, why should one sign across to a new contract with diminished terms and conditions to suit the one creating the fault?

An employment contract is bounded to be a betterment or at least the same as per the requirement in the employment ordinance. If the signed contract is of any less than the employment ordinance, it is meant to be corrected. This is not breaking the contract.

Congratz to the guys in nz for winning the court case :D:D:D
and salute to them for standing up to fight for their own entitlement! :ok:

[Staggers]

I agree it's good to get a win over the company but those NZ guys had the chance to sign over but they didn't and agreed to leave at 55 as per the original contract. Now they've been given permission to break that contract and it will probably f### anyone else wanting a base.

I don't see it as a win over the company. It is simply applying the law of the land. There are costs and benefits to the company as far as bases are concerned.
If they can't compete on the same basis as the local legacy carriers sobeit.

As I mentioned in a previous post virgin and ba salaries for senior pilots are comparable with cx and all the expat benefits have been removed from based crews. So it's "a level playing field" re crew costs.

If that's not workable it would be a pretty sorry result.

[Liam Gallagher]

Xwindldg,

Maybe this result is the final nail in the coffin of bases. However, that will just be because of the small minded petty thinking that infests Hello Kitty City and should have nothing to do with this result.

What you are forgetting is that every base, apart from NZ, have contracts that are local law compliant. In Cathay language that is expressed as "on-shored". The kiwis still had in their COS that HK law applied. As kiwis tend to be, they were the odd ones out.

So yeah, the Company could spit the dummy and overreact, but it would just be another dumb decision to add to the long list of other dumb decisions....

Oil price dropping- hedge massively against rising oil prices. - doh....
Need 3 man, cancel RPs, get hit with TB, can't do 3 man except 252/253, let LHR base numbers drop so can't even do 252/253, still stuck with TB....doh....
Invest in CMP project, alienate IT staff, alienate pilots, CMP project delayed -doh....
Sign CBA with USAOA, overlook Kincare, try to shaft pilots on A-days, Kincare bites them in the @ss- doh.... Global pilot market tightens, T&Cs start to rise, email all your pilots threatening to cut their T&Cs... Let's see how that works out for them....

[corrigin]

Xwingldg, take heed of what some of the senior pilots in this airline are saying. Continue to agree and sign to lesser conditions and you'll only have yourself to blame. Nothing is more annoying than hearing people on a lesser CoS complain when they signed after reading the contract they were offered. Nobody put a gun to your head and you chose to come to Cathay on your own accord - you were not invited.
Clearly you haven't been here long enough.

Shep / Traf- well said :ok:

[mrfox]

Xwingldg, take heed of what some of the senior pilots in this airline are saying. Continue to agree and sign to lesser conditions and you'll only have yourself to blame. Nothing is more annoying than hearing people on a lesser CoS complain when they signed after reading the contract they were offered. Nobody put a gun to your head and you chose to come to Cathay on your own accord - you were not invited.
Clearly you haven't been here long enough.

Shep / Traf- well said :ok:

Long enough to remember how B scale undercut A Scale?

[Dragon69]

Long enough to remember how B scale undercut A Scale?

Long enough to know how the A scales were the first to sign an imposed CoS without so much as a whimper.

[Trafalgar]

Yes. It's just like smoking. Back in the 60's, the bad health effects weren't really understood....now, there is no excuse. Same with our contracts: back in the 90's we were pretty naive....now, there is no excuse. Whatever the company tries to 'bribe' the more junior pilots with, they will eventually take away. Either we learn from history or we will continue to descend to the level of an asian LCC. We are pretty close to that point now. All any of you need to focus on is simply this: any concessions from the pilots will mean the dollars taken from you and your families will be put straight into the pockets of our managers. THAT is the reason for the 'grinning idiot' photo every friday.

[crwkunt roll]

Originally Posted by Xwindldg View Post
Final nail in the coffin for new bases then. Love how these guys took a base knowing exactly what the terms of the contract were, now they do this and give a big f### you to anyone else who might have wanted a base one day.
Love how some guys took a job knowing exactly what the terms of the contract were. A big f*** you to anyone else who might have ever wanted a pay rise.

[Brokeidiot]

Only hope the company doesn't use its normal spiteful manner and close the base even though that might be more expensive for those that choose to move back but that might be offset by the few that take redundancy. Time will tell I guess

[Jackschitt]

of course they're closing the base... with new contracts coming, it won't be more expensive for them to move guys to hkg.

[goathead]

Actually
Just passing on a message from a mate
A big FU from all HKG based AOA members who commute for all the jumpseat requests that go nowhere
Especially to the Cantabrian who hands out jumpseats to "better looking "cabin crew .
Awesome Kiwis
The words stingy come to mind ...

[kiwicx]

maybe they just don't like your mate.

[goathead]

Maybe kiwicx maybe , but is it possible kiwicx cpts dont give a f##k about the rest ? The complaint dont come from one , but quite a few ....
What , dont have the company ipad ?
Anyway who the hell wants to work for cx post 55 anyway ? Goodnight and goodluck !

[Runnymede]

That bases can save $$$$ and make our CMP and CX efficient is obvious. Jeppesen have told CX loudly............

That there are two types of pilots in CX, being those with principles versus those without, only wanting, whining, bitching, crying, scheming and backstabbing to achieve their own end, is factually obvious to CX, to our collective demise!

That CX have an ability to connect the very few dots it takes to play those principled against those that aren't, is what this TRAIN SET is all about ladies and gentlemen........ terms used loosely, apply as applicable.

Resolve, Calm, Priniples, Knowledge and yet more Resolve, are the qualities that see these two principled Kiwis working till 65 on a NZ contract, endorsed by their Supreme Court!

If you must have a basing NOW..........go join QF or BA or LH or EZ or NZ, they're all employing or will be shortly.

Knowledge is power.

Knowledge combined with principles, applied calmly..... WOW, I caught myself dreaming.

[Xwindldg]

Xwingldg, take heed of what some of the senior pilots in this airline are saying. Continue to agree and sign to lesser conditions and you'll only have yourself to blame. Nothing is more annoying than hearing people on a lesser CoS complain when they signed after reading the contract they were offered. Nobody put a gun to your head and you chose to come to Cathay on your own accord - you were not invited.
Clearly you haven't been here long enough.

Shep / Traf- well said :ok:


Corrigin,

Well what's happening here then? These guys signed a contract saying they would retire at 55 then went to court and complained about it. No one "put a gun to their head" as you said. To top it off this decision will f### anyone else wanting a base.

So they have done exactly what you are talking about.

[slowjet]

Ozziekiwi : If there is no age discrimination, wouldn't it be possible to sue the CAA for not issuing a class one to anyone over the age of 65 ? Just asking.

[morningcoffee]

Curtain rod, If slavery is the best analogy you can come up with and it's more than just sheer coincidence your using it in reference to the NZ base then it will probably be a blessing when the base closes. Wouldn't you agree? I hope the NZ based guys who don't choose redundancy get in to hkg under the current ARAPA before it changes.

[RAT Management]

Great.... now we have to put up with the kiwi's for longer.... as if they weren't weird enough already... Now they are going be weird and OLD!.... aaaghhh! Just die already!

[Shep69]

Curtain rod, If slavery is the best analogy you can come up with and it's more than just sheer coincidence your using it in reference to the NZ base then it will probably be a blessing when the base closes. Wouldn't you agree? I hope the NZ based guys who don't choose redundancy get in to hkg under the current ARAPA before it changes.

Closing a base to evade compliance with a law in a nation in which they wish to continue to operate (and in the immediate aftermath of a judgment against them). Wonder how THAT would turn out.

[cxorcist]

Closing a base to evade compliance with a law in a nation in which they wish to continue to operate (and in the immediate aftermath of a judgment against them). Wonder how THAT would turn out.

I actually DO wonder. CX could easily claim some BS about type changes, base administration expenses, and/or the new CMP says XYZ. Even if none of it is true, we know that won't stop them from claiming it. They used the type change argument in Paris even though the whole world knew it wasn't why the base was closing. That's the problem with lying so much... Even when you tell the truth, nobody believes you anymore.

[Shep69]

I actually DO wonder. CX could easily claim some BS about type changes, base administration expenses, and/or the new CMP says XYZ. Even if none of it is true, we know that won't stop them from claiming it. They used the type change argument in Paris even though the whole world knew it wasn't why the base was closing. That's the problem with lying so much... Even when you tell the truth, nobody believes you anymore.

I'd conjecture at the end of the day it would depend on how much clout and credibility you'd have in the jurisdiction you wish to operate considering the overall situation. And on your track record there. And on how much the host nation wishes you to continue to operate there (this could involve politics as well--even to the extent of your continuing to be an employer within the jurisdiction and as such contributing to the overall economy and tax base).

One thing I think that is often overlooked is that a carrier (especially one foreign to the host nation) operates within that nation at the pleasure of it--and to its and the host nations' mutual advantage. And there IS competition for operational slots within many of those countries--often between competing carriers who are based in the same place.

So I believe it's best to be well behaved and do the right, safe, and ethical things. Lest that nation kick you out and banish you completely.

[cxorcist]

I'd conjecture at the end of the day it would depend on how much clout and credibility you'd have in the jurisdiction you wish to operate considering the overall situation. And on your track record there. And on how much the host nation wishes you to continue to operate there (this could involve politics as well--even to the extent of your continuing to be an employer within the jurisdiction and as such contributing to the overall economy and tax base).

One thing I think that is often overlooked is that a carrier (especially one foreign to the host nation) operates within that nation at the pleasure of it--and to its and the host nations' mutual advantage. And there IS competition for operational slots within many of those countries--often between competing carriers who are based in the same place.

So I believe it's best to be well behaved and do the right, safe, and ethical things. Lest that nation kick you out and banish you completely.

Those are nice, feel good sentiments, but we both know that's not how it works in big business and politics. If the US restricts or bans CX flying, HK would do the same to US carriers. We all know that can't happen. A few jobs here and there mean nothing compared to big business and the traveling public.

Don't over-emphasize your own worth. We are small potatoes relative to the big picture which is international trade. It would be easy to rationalize this using modern utilitarianism over your "fundamental rights" as an employee. The only real chance would be to get the story into the press and hope it goes viral, but that won't happen either because no one feels sorry for pilots making well over 6 figures.

[Shep69]

Those are nice, feel good sentiments, but we both know that's not how it works in big business and politics. If the US restricts or bans CX flying, HK would do the same to US carriers. We all know that can't happen. A few jobs here and there mean nothing compared to big business and the traveling public.

Don't over-emphasize your own worth. We are small potatoes relative to the big picture which is international trade. It would be easy to rationalize this using modern utilitarianism over your "fundamental rights" as an employee. The only real chance would be to get the story into the press and hope it goes viral, but that won't happen either because no one feels sorry for pilots making well over 6 figures.

Who said anything about the US ?

Anyway, maybe that's how it might have been ten or fifteen years ago. But there are ALOT of carriers now flying in and out of HK (many of whom are in competition and many of whom might want slots) and even more waiting in the wings. And I really doubt Bejing would much care about slots lost by one carrier and filled by another (in fact this might even further their agendas)--no matter where they might be heading. So.....no dice.

Kind of interesting how unprotected markets (on all sides) and capitalism levels the playing fields and lifts all boats (both of worker bees AND larger entities). Especially with a dose of Oliver Wendell Holmes' philosophy when it comes to Collective Bargaining and the relationship between capital and labour.

As such it'd probably behoove everyone to play nice.

[Dragon69]

If the US restricts or bans CX flying, HK would do the same to US carriers.

That's a false statement in this hypothetical scenario. CX may be the flag carrier of Hong Kong, but it is NOT a government owned airline. The US would not be banning every single carrier from Hong Kong, it would be banning CX ONLY. Therefore the government of HKG would have no authority to ban every US carrier in a tit for tat reaction.

The odds of the above happening is highly unlikely so it's all a moot point.

[morningcoffee]

Closing a base to evade compliance with a law in a nation in which they wish to continue to operate (and in the immediate aftermath of a judgment against them). Wonder how THAT would turn out.

Easy, they can choose whatever reason they want to to close the base. It's their airline and we're just employees. You're suggesting a court is going to tell a business where to sell its product or what product to make? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

[Progress Wanchai]

Corrigin,

Well what's happening here then? These guys signed a contract saying they would retire at 55 then went to court and complained about it. No one "put a gun to their head" as you said. To top it off this decision will f### anyone else wanting a base.

So they have done exactly what you are talking about.


Xwindldg,
Stop reading section 36 of their contract and flick all the way back to the start. You don't have to read beyond section 2. Application of the Law. At all times the contract must be interpreted and comply with the law and employment ordinance and this will override all other agreements. NZ's age discrimination laws override section 36 retirement age.
These 2 gentlemen were offered a contract til 65 but didn't believe they had to sign it as their current contract gave them an infinite retirement age (or until they lose their license/medical). As it tuns out they were correct.

Hang around here long enough and you too will be demanding that CX comply with Section 2 of your contract too. Or are you donating your monthly SHP payments back to the company?
No?
Thought not.

[controlledrest]

The EU views contracts and employment law in a similar way to the NZ Courts:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ryanair-crew-court/ryanair-loses-eu-court-battle-to-keep-irish-law-for-crew-abroad-idUSKCN1BP0VM

The guts of it is a company can't choose the best place for them to sign a contract and then ignore the laws of the land where the employees are effectively employed.


How much has CX spent fighting employees and trying to avoid first world laws?

Why not spend the money on quality advice and set things up properly from the start?

First world employment laws are there to protect employer and employee. A good employer has nothing to fear from them. Time for a change!