Reasons for a NO vote

[Amber Vibes]

I know it seems obvious to many (hopefully most) why POS18 should be voted down, but in the interest of removing any doubt, list the reasons for a no vote on POS18. Leave emotion, name calling, insults, rants, chest thumping, etc., out of this. No thread drifts or responding to other people's contributions to the list.

[main_dog]

1. Umbrella emasculates our union for the foreseeable future leaving us completely open to any new attack on T&Cs

2. Defined as a “turd with sprinkles” even by it’s main NC supporter

3. Doesn’t come close to what was polled as minimum for HKPA

4. Is a reduction in terms of ARAPA

5. Contains an offensive 1% “payrise” when everyone else just got 3%. Forget about keeping up with inflation if we accept this. In fact, forget about ever getting another payrise once POS18 get trained up

6. Gives the company everything they want in exchange for all the above

[FUANNA]

The fact alone, that it is recommended by a corrupted GC and Chairman.

[Sam Ting Wong]

I believe there is a misconception here.

The company is our employer, and we are employees.

We are not citizen in a democracy.

We do not have voting rights. POS 18 is not up for a vote.

We can only vote in an internal union referendum wether to accept the latest company offer or to continue with the status quo. The other vote on offer is with your feet. That's it. All our wish lists, our minimum requirements, our envisions of an acceptable future package, all that is just a castle in the sky. The company doesn't have to negotiate anything at all. They do occasionally sit down and talk with our representatives. It is completely voluntarily to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to find an agreement with us under Hong Kong law.

Additionally, I warn to overestimate the power of a training ban. There are ways around it. They might cost something, but so would giving in to demands.

We are not as strong as some of you believe.
This could end in a tragedy.

The last rejection is already hurting us.
Don't make the same mistake twice.

[Flying_Brick]

If we vote yes we will never be able to use the training ban again EVER.

[RAT Management]

The facts speak for themselves. Facts coupled with your experience in your career so far in this company and others gives you an instinct. Instinct tells you it's a No pure and simple.

If you vote Yes, it means you do so with a cringe, and you will be in a permanent state of flinch as you wait for what you hoped wouldn't happen, happen. Only to see it unfold before your eyes..... Then as you vote with your feet and walk out that door to take your position at the bottom of the seniority list, you will be thinking if I ever get in that situation again I would vote No because instinct said it was the right thing to do.

Do the right thing listen to your instincts, or accept the consequences.

[Sam Ting Wong]

The training ban can be unhinged. Simply take enough away from the line pilots and give it to the trainers. How many would still respect the ban if it would be a way to remain on full ARAPA? How many would quit?

You guys are at risk to underestimating the powers of the other side.

[Progress Wanchai]

STW makes a valid point.

The vote is between what’s on offer, or the status quo with its 3 amenable company policies.
The current rumor is; management believe that they’ve got very unlucky with their timing and are aiming for a NO vote, then hold out anticipating a 2019 recession, before walking away entirely (ala 2001). The one thing we’ve got in our favor is management don’t have a great track record of predicting future financial markets, although the law of averages suggests they’re overdue.

[Oasis]

The training ban can be unhinged. Simply take enough away from the line pilots and give it to the trainers. How many would still respect the ban if it would be a way to remain on full ARAPA? How many would quit?

You guys are at risk to underestimating the powers of the other side.

I don't see people breaking the training ban over a few more perks there.
Anyone with half a brain would see the perks would be temporary and your good name lasts the length of a career.
Powers? Enlighten me...

[Sam Ting Wong]

Oasis,

there are multiple ways to attack the training ban:

1) ARAPA only to trainers, rest on frozen HKPA or significantly cut ARAPA. An instant killer move.

2) Increase pay only for trainers/ reduce pay for line pilots proportional to the ratio line pilots : trainers. Cost neutral. If you cut ARAPA or freeze HKPA for line pilots only you can't even spend it all on trainers.

3) Preferential treatment of trainers in non-pecuniary areas, e.g. leave bidding, requests, basings, parking, travel benefits, part-time, seperate seniority list, fleet transfer, weekends/school holidays off, take away FOCs from line pilots and give it to trainers, 11 for their ID90 tickets, free stays at the Headland, commuting contracts etc Anything is possible. Cost neutral-ish

4) Externalise training to other agencies. I would not be surprised if they are already in talks. Offer companies like Flight Safety long-term contracts and they will invest and do the job.

5) Hire contract trainers

You could use a combination of the above or start one by one.

One way or the other, the company will get what they want in the end. If the pressure is high enough the measures could be drastic.This is Hong Kong, Ground Zero of corporate greed, a Disneyland for managers, a wet dream of every shareholder. We do not have rights worth mentioning. Our union is basically a social club with insurance benefits, no disrespect to the active members. We do not have any real power, except leaving. I don't think enough will leave.

Trainers could step back from their posts as we speak, but they don't. Some individuals already broke the ban. I don't believe there is enough solidarity among us to stop people from joining training if the benefits are high enough.

[RAT Management]

STW,

Points 1&2 are covered by agreements that would be the result of legal challenge. Otherwise ARAPA would have been cancelled already... Afterall it's a cost saving.... That's why there are negotiations and any acceptance of a new ARapa would nullify any chance to legally challenge.

Points 4&5 come at huge cost. Not only at financial terms but also for careers of staff and moral of airline. Not to mention the lots of control of the standards. Besides you know what will be willing to be paid... Peanuts.... Result..... Monkeys and Accidents.

Quit your scare mongering.

If this is the deal you want vote Yes.

If it's not good enough or you have a bad feeling about it, vote No.

It's that simple.

[Progress Wanchai]

6) Mitigate the training ban by transferring aircraft between entities. Personally I doubt it makes little difference which way the vote goes, KA and AHK are to expand at the cost of a shrinking CX.

If the vote goes one way, management have a scapegoat.
If it goes the other, it’ll still happen but quieter.
The days of CX pilots flying freighters (or even 330’s) are numbered. Senior pilots, particularly captains, won’t care too much that they work for a shrinking airline that is removing the least desirable patterns. Junior pilots may be less amused.

[plainpilot11]

If there were ways around the training ban they would have done so already. They tried STW. Remember the attempt with DA? All done trying to scare the kids?

[JPJP]

We are not as strong as some of you believe.This could end in a tragedy.

The last rejection is already hurting us.
Don't make the same mistake twice.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x254/990d8fbd_6ca3_4de1_a2bc_fbfbd5b039c2_e4e59e4787580437024f966 39e395d03dbfe172b.gif


You’ve described yourself as an expat who married a local, then became sanguine to the abuse that you’ve received. You’ve claimed that you are a B Scale expat. I find it difficult to believe that a person from a first world country could be as ignorant of the global industry as you pretend to be. I don’t believe that you're a B Scale pilot. That leaves three options;

1. You’re a troll, or

2. You’re a management troll.

3. All of the above with a scab mentality.


I’m reminded of a YouTube video showing a young Hong Kong local boy crying on his knees, taking a beating from his skinny little girlfriend. She had the money.

[Progress Wanchai]

Dont vote yes because you are afraid of what might, could, maybe happen.

Vote on the facts...the deal is a one sided piece of crap, so it's a NO.[/QUOTE]

That’s a 2 sided argument.

There are a number of crew who are selling property and shares, converting provident fund to cash, on the conviction the economy is about to tank.
Then we’ve crew who firmly believe that time will buy us greater leverage.

They can’t both be right.

[JPJP]

Genius.

Don’t all arguments have at least two sides ? Learning to quote on the interwebs is important too.

Good luck.

[viking avenger]

The Reason to vote no is simple: It is not an improvement!

1% pay is less than a overnight allowance and the entire issue is not about Money.

the RP's are not better, and if the Training Ban goes away the AOA needs written assurance that Jepp Crew Request is funded.

ARAPA is worse for a majority of pilots than what is previously on offer and HKPA does not meet inflation nor what the New Joiners on POS 18 receive.

The GC should also add getting POS 18 New Joiners into the mix on this action, for the pure fact it is discriminatory!
One Contract
One set of Work Rules,
One Pay Scale
One Airline

That is what is meant by Time to Win!

[Cpt. Underpants]

Is it possible that for the first time, the GC has referred the decision to the membership to soundly vote "no" instead of the usual impasse that CX management consistently blames on an obstructive, uncooperative GC?
Of course, the proposal is awful, and no-one in their right minds would vote yes.
A NO vote is exactly what the GC wants!

[unitedabx]

Is it possible that for the first time, the GC has referred the decision to the membership to soundly vote "no" instead of the usual impasse that CX management consistently blames on an obstructive, uncooperative GC?
Of course, the proposal is awful, and no-one in their right minds would vote yes.
A NO vote is exactly what the GC wants!

The GC really isn't that smart.

[Sam Ting Wong]

So to sum it up.

JP believes calling me a manager is much better than bringing up actual arguments, Dan likes expletives, Viking wants one contract for all (!), Cpt Underpants thinks the GC is in it and is voting in favor but actually isn't, and United is just adding insult to injury.

What a team.

[unitedabx]

So to sum it up, JP believes calling me a manager is much better than bringing up actual arguments, Viking wants one contract for all (!), Cpt Underpants thinks the GC is in it and is voting in favor but actually isn't, and United is just adding insult to injury.

What a team.

STW, you are defeatest. Vote "NO"

[Sam Ting Wong]

I don't know how to put it to you, United. Calling me a defeatist is not an argument, it just isn't.

By all means, everyone should vote as they please, I respect your choice, but why do you guys think you find it so hard to bring up real arguments?

Calling each other names is just childish and leads nowhere. I am going to take a break.

[SASD209]

What a team.

That is the point... there is no team here. Looking from the outside here in Canada, you all are your own worst enemies.

[cxorcist]

A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!

[Amber Vibes]

A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!


Every attempt to reason and negotiate has fallen on deaf ears. They interpret professionalism and taking the high road as weakness and not having the stomach to stand up to them. Every time they get a whiff of what they perceive as said weakness, they become more intractable. It seems the only thing they will understand is a strike. I have no doubt that they are 99.999999999999% certain you won't, and so they keep on keeping on.

[unitedabx]

A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!

It will never happen in CX. Too many self interested factions. HOWEVER, the CC and TB is having an effect. A bit like water boarding, slowly the company is drowning. It may not be fashionable but it is effective.

[mngmt mole]

Sam, am I going to have to chase your frantic and pathetic posts all over PPRUNE...? As I said to you on the other thread, let the grownups decide what they want their careers to be. Your scaremongering is getting wearisome. As to the training ban, which you seem to denigrate, it is in fact crippling the airline and is highly effective, so no wonder you attempt to discredit it (proof: look at the overall goal of the companys proposal, which is to get rid of the TB). We won't be giving up our one effective tactic for the worst contract on offer in the airline industry. To do so will guarantee the end of the AOA, the end of hope for a proper career in CX and the end of any decision as to whether people leave or stay. It will in fact be the end of CX, the management are just too blind and myopic to see it. As Turbine70 just told you above, your post is illogical. (and again, all your posts show as your 'first' post...why is that Sam?).

[tiredofstupidity]

This offer does not indicate that the company are even remotely concerned about the TB. We don’t have leverage. It’s the illusion of leverage. All the grandstanding big talk here and on the AOA forums demonstrates a complete lack of reasoning ability.

It’s false logic to assume that what HAS NOT worked in the last few years is somehow going to work now. Assuming that because the company wants to get rid of the TB means it’s cripplign them is naive. They haven’t needed to grow the last couple of years while they “transform” . Saving all that money they would have had to pay if TA16 passed suits them fine I’m sure.

Now we we are entering a period where the company not only desires to grow, but might have real opportunity to grow with some extra slots available due trouble across the road. So we reject this offer but don’t change our industrial approach. The company has 1600 HKPA increases worth of money budgeted for, which can now be used exclusively to circumvent the almighty training ban.

Signing bonus? Training pay increase? Guaranteed leave at either Xmas or school holidays? Contract trainers (yes it’s possible)? Increased FOCs? Higher priority on staff travel? Parking spots? Guaranteed pick of trips? Bases? That’s just off the top of my head. Peace is option a for the company. But they’ll fight if they have to. Are we ready?

As a bit of an aside I’m dismayed at the glee some of the more dimwitted amongst you seem to have at hurting the company. The long term profitability and success of Cathay Pacific is really good for job security. Also good for negotiations when the company is taking in billions. And please for the love of god spare me the idiotic conspiracy theories.

In summary. Let’s vote NO and the take it up a notch. A NO and “holding the line” is going to lead to absolute heartbreak.

[mngmt mole]

Is this offer acceptable: NO
Is the TB effective: YES
Does the company want the TB removed: YES
Will the company suddenly transform into a caring employer if we roll over: NO
Will the company laugh themselves all the way to their next bonuses if we vote yes: YES
Can the company expand with a TB and CC: NO
What is the obvious answer to this appalling and derisory offer: NO

It really doesn't matter what they threaten or imply. I am not voting for an offer that neuters the AOA, confirms we are weak fools, and once and for all opens the doors to a never ending slide towards COS 18 for all. It may not be comfortable doing so, but a NO vote is the ONLY sane option. I am happy to keep TB and CC going for the rest of my career, and i'm on ARAPA and would like the additional housing. I won't throw away my integrity and honour for that however. NO. NO. NO.

[DownUnderThunder]

I believe there is a misconception here.

The company is our employer, and we are employees.

We are not citizen in a democracy.

We do not have voting rights. POS 18 is not up for a vote.

We can only vote in an internal union referendum wether to accept the latest company offer or to continue with the status quo. The other vote on offer is with your feet. That's it. All our wish lists, our minimum requirements, our envisions of an acceptable future package, all that is just a castle in the sky. The company doesn't have to negotiate anything at all. They do occasionally sit down and talk with our representatives. It is completely voluntarily to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to find an agreement with us under Hong Kong law.

Additionally, I warn to overestimate the power of a training ban. There are ways around it. They might cost something, but so would giving in to demands.

We are not as strong as some of you believe.
This could end in a tragedy.

The last rejection is already hurting us.
Don't make the same mistake twice.

This is the entire point of a union Sam, to inject some much needed democracy into the tyranny of a company. You might accuse me of hyperbole but without people fighting for their rights as employees we would have 12 year old working 20 hours a day in coal mines. Without people fighting for their conditions do you really believe that they would not continuously be eroded at the whims of management and shareholders?
You have correctly hit upon the main reason the union is not as effective as it's members would like, and that's Hong Kong law, but we must not give into fatalism and accept whatever paltry compromise the negotiating team vomits up. You want to be pragmatic, I get it, but you must acknowledge that the economic situation that the company finds itself in is improving and compared to the last time an offer was made it's future is looking bright.
Pragmatically speaking, the membership would be wise to reject this bad deal, and continue to patiently negotiate while the economic climate continues to improve and make the company's positions look ridiculously untenable. Keep up the training ban, and keep up the pressure. Don't give in to fear-mongering, media-smearing, and bully tactics.

[SloppyJoe]

Reasons for a yes vote.

I will probably get a fair bit of stick for this but in my opinion it is the sensible thing to vote yes.

What will Cathay do if we vote no? Capitulate or teach us a lesson. People have already broken the training ban, you think those who are on the fence will support an AOA that sold us out? This will be the excuse many need to resign from the AOA and go into training. I don't think it will be a flood but there will be some, not enough to solve the issue for CX. As alluded to above, they will find ways to circumvent the TB. External parties training, KA, people going over to POS18 past 55 and "made" to go into training, additional perks for trainers. What will we do? Continue not answering our phones and mainly not accepting new training positions, will this cripple them like so many on here believe? They are a vindictive bunch and will do anything to get one over on us.

Pay, 1% is a joke and 1% is what it will be if we vote yes. What will it be if we vote no? Pos18 was brought in when they were apparently being crippled by CC and the TB. How many pay rises have A scale had since B scale arrived? I honestly don't think they will give us more if we vote no. For the majority at CX upgrades have been delayed due to this, my best guess is at least by 12 months. That is a huge pay cut for the majority, and that lasts a career.

RPs, one of the biggest gripes it seems is the reserve of 3 or 6 days and O days attached. How is it now? GGGRGG I have seen, I have also seen RDutyDutyDutyDutyOO, what have we (AOA) done about it? Nothing! They will continue to be punitive with this in true CX style just to teach us a lesson.

HKPA, it's a bit better but still woefully inadequate. These pipe dreams of it being indexed are just that, dreams. Indexing a housing assistance has bitten them before. How much has been lost since TA16 was turned down buy guys on HKPA? I voted no for that in the incorrect assumption that the AOA (us) would tighten the screws, be aggressive in negotiations, walk away from **** offers, lead from the top and have more training resignations than we did.

ARA, this is the only thing that has me on the fence. I do not think it right to vote yes to something that will cause people to lose out, guys in serviced apartments will be out of pocket. I am on ARAPA btw. Do I think they will impose this rule regardless, yes. Do I think we (AOA) will support action against the company for doing this if the offer is turned down, no I don't. I would be happy to and would expect it, but it is not just me. They want this gone, if we vote yes at least we know we have 10 years till that time comes. By then we will be in the vast minority, do you think an AOA then would support us? That is also the case in 5 years if we vote to reject this, if they come after it, will we be successful in fighting them. During the next down turn, maybe in 1,2,3 years, if they come after it will we be successful? Current negotiations indicate no. There are too many CNs and trainers on ARAPA for them to cancel it now, so if we vote no I expect it will be rolled over with the serviced apartment change included.

Umbrella agreement, this is truly shocking. If we vote yes we have lost any leverage for a long time. They will over staff training to protect against disputes when each clause expires. We will lose any power we have. Can someone explain what that power is in Hong Kong? We have power if we are united, unfortunately we are far from it and will keep moving further from that ideal as more join on reduced terms.

I know I will be labeled as scared, of capitulating, of giving up. I have come to the realisation, when this was recommended and there appears to be no plan in the event of a no vote, that CX is dead as a prosperous career for a pilot. They will hire more and more from anywhere, people will see this as a good deal, commuting to the Philippines or Vietnam, working less days for more than they got working for an airline such as Cebu Pacific or VietJet. I have no loyalty to CX, once it makes sense for me to go home I will but for now that time has not come, I know it will, that is the only certainty I have with my career at CX.

[Samsonite]

The based crew have heard all the stories as well as the misconceptions as seems like most people haven't even read the TA. 4 different people voting on it and half hadn't even read the whole deal. I cant believe that something as important as this and all the answers I get when I ask specific questions about the deal is not even relevant as the people haven't read the deal. Lots of answers like my mate told me this etc just people listening too other peoples flight deck and even worse bar chat. Unbelievable , thats how the 2016 deal was given away as most people listen to a few loud people and now they want what was in the 2016 deal??? Here we go again!!
If this a NO vote then fine just do it with authority and be prepared to back it up otherwise enough of all the tough talk!!!

[mothy1583]

If CX want to impose this in a punitive firm of retribution, that's their call. It won't be with my blessing.

[Threethirty]

They introduced POS18 under the TB probably because they knew that the GC had their backs.

[Avinthenews]

CC/TB is death by a thousand cuts for CX the chickens are coming home to roost in 2019!

If we vote yes we seriously are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, all you have to do is keep working to your contract.

[Sqwak7700]

Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.

When is is the last time the company wanted you to benefit?

Do not vote for anything the company wants you to vote for. It’s a clear sign you settled for lower than they would go.

95% NO and a clear message to escalate. What do you have to lose?

[broadband circuit]

Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.

Wise words sir

[FlexibleResponse]

Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.

Sqwak has said it in a nutshell.

[FlexibleResponse]

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...flying-manager (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-economy/article/2155737/hong-kongs-cathay-pacific-sends-high-flying-manager)Quote:Cathay Pacific Airways has parachuted one of its star performers – a man barely halfway through leading its company restructure – into a new role tackling an issue central to the loss-making airline’s return to profitability: disgruntled pilots.

Strategic transformation head Alex McGowan is the new general manager for aircrew, sources said. McGowan had lately been in charge of turning around Hong Kong’s flagship carrier, including overseeing 600 job cuts earlier last year.

His main task will be to give the airline’s talks with pilots another shot. They stalled last November over disagreements on pay, benefits and changes to flying schedules.
To shave HK$4 billion (US$510 million) from its books by next year, Cathay Pacific has been pushing for savings on aircrew costs of up to HK$1 billion.

I am not sure that everybody is on the same page here?

It was announced in the SCMP (18 July 2018) that Alex McGowan was parachuted into CX to screw the pilots out of a further HK$1 billion.

A YES vote is just the start and WILL lead to a loss of pilots pay and allowancws to the tune of HK$1 billion.

The Management has ANNOUNCED their intentions and end-game.

How much plainer can the case be for a NO vote

[Bueno Hombre]

Training Ban might be considered by others to be both Selfish and Immoral.
Hong Kong deserves better..

[Bueno Hombre]

A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!

Yes bring it on.. There are still plenty of pilots around the world who would love to take the places of the strikers.

[mngmt mole]

Yes BH, there are always pilots around who have no integrity, self-worth or character. Always been the case. CX tried it with those types during the ASL debacle of the mid-90's....and they are still trying to clean up the mess they made. It is also worth noting that a strike would never happen, because as we got near to the date, the HK Govt would put intolerable pressure on CX management to settle with the pilots and avoid a shutdown. It's just a shame that we haven't taken them on to that level...yet. As for you TB comment....selfish and immoral describes the few cretins who have broken the ban and undermined the efforts of their 3000+ colleagues who have endured and sacrificed during our CC and TB. They are the ones who deserve contempt (and which they will receive every day of their miserable CX careers).

[Sqwak7700]

Training Ban might be considered by others to be both Selfish and Immoral.
Hong Kong deserves better..

Capitalism and freewill is a bitch, ain’t it?

Maybe go back to the communist utopia up north if you don’t like it. Or just wait a few years longer, it might still exist and finally fully destroy Hong Kong as promised in 97. Flip of a coin really.

But with your screen name, maybe Fidel’s or Chavez’s/Maduro’s shangri-la is more up your alley? Hope you got a wheel barrow to carry the millions needed to make run to the market for a carton of milk.

[raven11]

Bueno Hombre

You really have no idea what you’re talking about. If you knew the truth you would be ashamed of yourself. I’m embarrassed to even dignify your nonsensical posts with a reply but I feel I must.

If you had paid even the slightest attention to the airline industry over the past two decades you would be aware of how much the Cathay pilots have endured. It has been 25 years of industrial attack (That’s not a typo, the number is 25). Cathay was once the most sought after pilot job in the world. Now...not so much. How do you think that happened? Who do you think has borne the brunt of that shameful decline? Any ideas?
Still stumped? Try google....

[Amber Vibes]

@Bueno Hombre - You are not a bueno hombre. You are flame baiting, scare mongering and attempting to shape the opinions and actions of the unfortunate souls for whom pprune is their sole source of information. You are encouraging those who are allegedly your brethren to put on a corporate straight jacket, eliminate their ability to earn, and be abused by the capricious whims of a venal and self-interested company. THAT IS SELFISH AND IMMORAL.

You state that, "There are still plenty of pilots around the world who would love to take the places of the strikers". Didn't the memo reach you on the 3rd floor that there is a world-wide pilot shortage? It's real and it's everywhere. I would love to watch Cathay scramble to replace the entire pilot group, he!!, even a fraction of the group. Why do you think there's no run-around CC/TB - lack of personnel everywhere! Just ask the Flight Attendants how many got sacked.

You either have zero self respect or you are not part of the pilot group.

[kenfoggo]

The most compelling reason to vote “NO!” Is that this “agreement “ does not fix the “trust” issue.
It certainly does NOT fix the rampant distrust between the aircrew and their employers. You get the impression that they are about to steal your eyeballs and once the peace agreement is signed they will come back for the sockets.
Reread this “agreement” again and the sense of betrayal and the feeling of being mugged just will not go away.
One percent pay increase is insulting, derisory and deliberately meant to show contempt to the aircrew. It comes at a time when the airline is allegedly making a HUGE operational profit on it’s day to day airline operations, which is the part your best efforts contribute towards. If any loss is manufactured by the accountants it is because of Management’s misdeeds and failings (fuel hedging etc, etc etc,etc,etc) , not yours. So why pay for their errors, so they can justify their huge bonus?
If you believe one per cent is what you are worth and believe that it is really all that they can afford (when everyone else got 3 percent) then you will vote “yes”.

[mngmt mole]

There is one profound aspect to the coming outcome of the vote. It will determine, once and for all whether we are a group of professionals deserving of industry comparable conditions of service, pay, retirement and overall benefits. Or, it will determine once and for all that we are a pathetic, beaten, weak, characterless group of self-flagellating losers who basically get what we deserve. For most of us, it will at least provide the clarity as to whether there is any further hope in staying. Ironically, if the vote is majority "yes", it will be the final nail in the coffin of doubt as to whether to stay or escape for a proper career at an employer more deserving. It will actually bring on the final crisis that our mindless management are hoping at all costs to avoid, a mass and exponentially increasing resignation rate. It will be cathartic, either way. I hope and believe that my fellow colleagues possess more personal pride, integrity and self worth than this derisory offer suggests we are worth. One percent...really? If that is what you think you are worth, then give the company the satisfaction of your vote. If you believe that your professional value is greater than what this malicious, dishonest and soulless management are saying you are worth, then shove this right back in their faces. NO.

[Amber Vibes]

Excellent post Kenfoggo, but let's look at the forest through the trees. That 1% isn't part of the agreement. You are agreeing to those fascistic terms in exchange for future negotiations for that 1% payrise. In short, if this proposal gets a yes vote, YOU STILL DON'T GET THAT 1% PAYRISE!! You still have to negotiate for it. Given their past behaviour and the multitude of promises not honored what do you think will happen here? Even if there was a credible promise to give the 1%, IT'S STILL 1 PHUKING PERCENT!!.

[kenfoggo]

Amber Vibes, if you are going to have a rant you must educate yourself. 1 percent is the default offer if after the promised “pay negotiations “ cannot come to a better agreement. The 1 percent stands firm to be imposed unless a better agreement can be achieved by the HKAOA negotiators.
Please everyone reread the “agreement” to be sure you know what you are voting for or against.

[Amber Vibes]

Fair enough, I stand corrected. However, it is still 1 PHUKING PERCENT! If you vote yes, there is no way in he!! they will ever give you anything more than that. Why would they? You all will be totally straight-jacketed and basically enslaved. No more voice, no more leverage, no more pretense of rights or at least a contract that says you have rights --- probably not ever. There is nothing to lose if you vote no, except 1%. Where do you go from there? This is it. It's a watershed moment. You will probably never have them where you have them again, especially with market conditions as they are. All this would go away if you show them you're not afraid to take it to the next level. Just ask the flight attendants. The very idea that people need to be told to vote no is mind boggling.

[unitedabx]

Fair enough, I stand corrected. However, it is still 1 PHUKING PERCENT! If you vote yes, there is no way in he!! they will ever give you anything more than that. Why would they? You all will be totally straight-jacketed and basically enslaved. No more voice, no more leverage, no more pretense of rights or at least a contract that says you have rights --- probably not ever. There is nothing to lose if you vote no, except 1%. Where do you go from there? This is it. It's a watershed moment. You will probably never have them where you have them again, especially with market conditions as they are. All this would go away if you show them you're not afraid to take it to the next level. Just ask the flight attendants. The very idea that people need to be told to vote no is mind boggling.

Who in their right mind would enter into pay negotiations with the default that if agreement cannot be reached ( and rember it hasn't been reached in the last 4 years ) then the company pays 1%. The company need not even turn up to the negotiations and you would be agreeing to 1%. Ridiculous prospect. No pre-conditions, no end to CC and TD until negotiations are completed and the bottom line is 3% increase backdated to match all other CX employees.

KA DPA pushing for 0%. Outrageaous position to take.

[Amber Vibes]

Who in their right mind would enter into pay negotiations with the default that if agreement cannot be reached ( and rember it hasn't been reached in the last 4 years ) then the company pays 1%. The company need not even turn up to the negotiations and you would be agreeing to 1%. Ridiculous prospect. No pre-conditions, no end to CC and TD until negotiations are completed and the bottom line is 3% increase backdated to match all other CX employees.

KA DPA pushing for 0%. Outrageaous position to take.

Oh, that's right. The generous 1% they are offering won't even be backdated. So basically a middle finger from management for your sacrifice and toil. Contract compliance and training ban all for nought! They want to biatch slap you guys and admonish you to never try this again. It is beyond disrespectful.

[Progress Wanchai]

Who in their right mind would enter into pay negotiations with the default that if agreement cannot be reached ( and rember it hasn't been reached in the last 4 years ) then the company pays 1%. The company need not even turn up to the negotiations and you would be agreeing to 1%. Ridiculous prospect. No pre-conditions, no end to CC and TD until negotiations are completed and the bottom line is 3% increase backdated to match all other CX employees.

KA DPA pushing for 0%. Outrageaous position to take.

unitedabx,

I respect this is more a forum for emotional venting than actual discussion, but I’ll try anyway.
The HKAOA is not in CC/TB over pay (or ARAPA). Nor will it ever be again. It is in CC/TB over RP’s and HKPA. While you personally can have you’re own level of self imposed industrial action, only the members decide when AOA industrial action begins and ends and for what purpose.

Try it just for fun. Propose a members motion to add pay or ARAPA to our current industrial campaign. It won’t pass as it’ll be seen to dilute a potential HKPA increase. Look no further than the thread where a former GC member unashamedly admitted the NC/GC unsuccessfully attempted to divert a pay offer into HKPA. It’s a safe bet that given the choice, any discretionary budget surplus the FOP department may offer our way, the GC/members will negotiate/vote to have it included into the HKPA tables rather than a pay rise, or ARAPA be returned to previous levels. The robbing of Peter to pay Paul has already started and will only get worse.

The DPA can afford to do nothing as their housing formula forms part of their COS, As far as protecting xpat benefits is concerned, the HKAOA aren’t afforded the luxury of doing nothing. Unfortunately negotiations regarding pay or housing will never be enhanced with the leverage of an organized, sanctioned industrial campaign. When AT cancelled ARAPA, she understood the pilot demographics.

[MPPCAG]

Unitedabx. You appear to be misinformed about what the DPA are pushing for, it certainly won't be 0%. The membership have accepted this for 3 years running, there won't be another.
The upcoming 'negotiations' should be short and sweet as crew numbers are under pressure on the red side of the crew room too now.
Should a reasonable basic pay rise deal not be offered then I think the company can expect CC and a TB. Simples.

[Chimptastic]

Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.

Nuff said.

NO.

[unitedabx]

Unitedabx. You appear to be misinformed about what the DPA are pushing for, it certainly won't be 0%. The membership have accepted this for 3 years running, there won't be another.
The upcoming 'negotiations' should be short and sweet as crew numbers are under pressure on the red side of the crew room too now.
Should a reasonable basic pay rise deal not be offered then I think the company can expect CC and a TB. Simples.

And I honestly wish you guys and gals the very best in achieving that. Power to you.

[BubbaJ]

Nuff said.

NO.

can you just feel their desperation right now

NO...

[RAT Management]

Because if you vote Yes they gain a considerable amount. Sure, you will gain a little now. But that will not offset what they will do to you later.

Why the propaganda to sell you a Yes vote? Because even they know it's not worthy of a Yes vote on paper alone.... They have to hard sell you the reasons by conveniently only highlighting the gains.... But glossing over the pains. As well as throw in the empty promises of bases, part time rosters, w-patterns all on a proviso of course that will never come to reality.

Who reads the fine print....? Ask anyone who bought a boat in DB... Sorry to tie this in, but it's a very real example of how only focusing on the good leaves you dangerously exposed. Condolences to those affected.

Simply it's not right.

They want you to vote Yes.

Do you need any other reason to vote No.

[Farman Biplane]

VOTE NO, NOTHING LOST, NOTHING GAINED, but certainty to avoid the destruction of the CC/TB leverage, whatever it’s effectiveness.

[unitedabx]

Imagine you are in a poker game with high stakes ( a bit like the scene with James Bond in Casino Royale ) and you come to a refreshment break. Before you go you display your cards to your opponent and he says "don't worry I will not remember them". Well if you vote YES that is exactly what you are doing, revealling your cards before the game is over. Keep your cards close to your chest and vote NO.