So, what's the latest with the 49ers?(Merged).
So, what's the latest with the 49ers?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gainful employment??
Many are still unemployed and some have left aviation because the likes of Emirates, Virgin and Dragonair won't hire them in spite of being very short of crew.
There are a couple who have found decent jobs but many are stuck with what's left, namely Air Atlanta and European, hardly gainful employment especially for the FOs.
Many are still unemployed and some have left aviation because the likes of Emirates, Virgin and Dragonair won't hire them in spite of being very short of crew.
There are a couple who have found decent jobs but many are stuck with what's left, namely Air Atlanta and European, hardly gainful employment especially for the FOs.
Last edited by 6feetunder; 22nd Nov 2004 at 07:27.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management speaks (and acts), pilots weep..
...and it is no different at CX.
Some, apparently uninformed, tried to twist the tail at CX, and paid the price.
You can't fight city hall, and I expect those who tried, fell by the wayside.
Peanuts and all.
Silly boys.
A lesson for all who 'think' they know better than the airline folks in charge.
Some, apparently uninformed, tried to twist the tail at CX, and paid the price.
You can't fight city hall, and I expect those who tried, fell by the wayside.
Peanuts and all.
Silly boys.
A lesson for all who 'think' they know better than the airline folks in charge.
411A,
" apparently uninformed"
doesn't apply to U does it. Completely uninformed is much more accurate.
No point repeating the facts to those that refuse to listen!! but if you'd managed to qualify for CX you'd have been gone long before the 49'ers.
" apparently uninformed"
doesn't apply to U does it. Completely uninformed is much more accurate.
No point repeating the facts to those that refuse to listen!! but if you'd managed to qualify for CX you'd have been gone long before the 49'ers.
Emirates, Virgin and Dragonair won't hire them in spite of being very short of crew.
. As there has been since 9/11, there is a severe over supply of qualified crew, and the above mentioned carriers can pick from a huge number of highly qualified applicants.This "There are plenty of jobs" delusion was used as a justification for the totaly immoral and ultimatley futile employment ban (which, of course, was dropped like a hot potato when CATHAY pilots jobs were threatened!).
By the way, I have enquired by e-mail on three occastions how the HKAOA intended to honour there pledge to "Support the application" of pilots who refused employment during the ban.
The result has been...silence.
Wizofoz,
Utter Crap is totally correct concerning your posting. Having spoken personally to the previous DFO of Emirates they have not been considered in the past. I hope that they (Emirates) have grown up. You. I think have shown your ignorance in the past. Perhaps you should check your facts before making comments.
Utter Crap is totally correct concerning your posting. Having spoken personally to the previous DFO of Emirates they have not been considered in the past. I hope that they (Emirates) have grown up. You. I think have shown your ignorance in the past. Perhaps you should check your facts before making comments.
Last edited by BusyB; 24th Nov 2004 at 15:54.
Busy B,
I suggest you re-read my post- It wasn't the suggestion that the 49ers would not be hired, it was the idea that the airlines mentioned rejected them in spite of there being not enough qualified pilots around that I was objecting too.
So aside from your mis-interpretation of what I thought was a pretty clear post, what other facts do you suggest I've got wrong?
I suggest you re-read my post- It wasn't the suggestion that the 49ers would not be hired, it was the idea that the airlines mentioned rejected them in spite of there being not enough qualified pilots around that I was objecting too.
So aside from your mis-interpretation of what I thought was a pretty clear post, what other facts do you suggest I've got wrong?
Wizofoz
What bullsh*t. No one ever threatened us if we didn’t drop the recruitment ban. Some of us realized that the company was trying to divide the pilot body. Something they had been trying to do for ages. If we were to prevail we had to stop it. A number of us told the AOA committee that the ban was futile and was playing right into the company’s hands of divide and conquer.
This "There are plenty of jobs" delusion was used as a justification for the totaly immoral and ultimatley futile employment ban (which, of course, was dropped like a hot potato when CATHAY pilots jobs were threatened!).
A number of us told the AOA committee that the ban was futile and was playing right into the company’s hands of divide and conquer.
Do a search and you'll find that is exactley what I was saying here at the time, and being very "Robustley" rebuked by the HKAOA. But tell me, was it simply co-incidence that the ban was dropped almost as soon as the SARS crisis hit, with it's associated threat to incumbebt CX pilots.
Busy,
You still don't get the thrust of my argument. I have nothing but sympathy for the 49ers. My beef has always been that the HKAOA refused to take any effective action on their behalf , instead lumping the responsibility on less fortunate pilots trying to get a job. During the recruitment ban, the attitude of the HKAOA was "Go work for Emirites instead", as if it was as simple as turning up in Dubai and starting work. As the 49ers found out, it isn't that simple, and a job with a Major Airline is worth a hell of a lot. Denying aspirants that opertunity because of your argument with the company was immoral as well as futile.
Wizofoz
A number of AOA members were telling the committee the same thing. Yes it was coincidence that the ban was dropped at the same time as SARS. Was the pilot body worried about their job security during SARS? You bet we were, just like every other employee of this company. If the company was going to have to down size it was going to affect everyone not just the pilots. Obviously you are speaking from an outside point of view. Let me just clarify it for you because you obviously have some issues with the AOA, the company at no time threatened us with dismissal if we didn’t drop the recruitment ban. The recruitment ban was dropped at the request of the members so we could start some dialog with the company. Whether this was a good move, only time will tell.
Do a search and you'll find that is exactley what I was saying here at the time, and being very "Robustley" rebuked by the HKAOA. But tell me, was it simply co-incidence that the ban was dropped almost as soon as the SARS crisis hit, with it's associated threat to incumbebt CX pilots.
Titan,
We are in total argreement. The membership was wise in ending the ban. A shame more of them had not been more vocal so as to prevent it it the first place.
My problems with the AOA are:-
1) They took no action that was likely to be effective in helping the 49ers.
2) They put the onis on prospective joiners to "Do their dirty work" for them.
3) Those that refused to be intimidated have been ostrisised and refused membership to the union.
4) The above only weakens the union, whilst discriminating againts a group that, in my view, took fair-enough action.
5) Stopped the ban when they worked out it was bad for THEM, without regard for the others they had disadvantaged.
As you seem to be a voice of reason within CX, could I suggest it would be appropriate to admit the ban was a bad idea, and lift the membership ban on people who joined under it?
We are in total argreement. The membership was wise in ending the ban. A shame more of them had not been more vocal so as to prevent it it the first place.
My problems with the AOA are:-
1) They took no action that was likely to be effective in helping the 49ers.
2) They put the onis on prospective joiners to "Do their dirty work" for them.
3) Those that refused to be intimidated have been ostrisised and refused membership to the union.
4) The above only weakens the union, whilst discriminating againts a group that, in my view, took fair-enough action.
5) Stopped the ban when they worked out it was bad for THEM, without regard for the others they had disadvantaged.
As you seem to be a voice of reason within CX, could I suggest it would be appropriate to admit the ban was a bad idea, and lift the membership ban on people who joined under it?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less and less
You just have to be an AOA member then.
Abbeville, it's about 50%. I am proud to say that I am amongst the approx. 50% who have not deserted my mates in their time of need.
I find it especially ironic that after 9 years of management persecution of the AOA and it's members, the company finds itself in the position of being obliged (by the courts) to negotiate with them, and is trying to encourage membership.
I sincerely hope you like the housing and rostering deals, 7FF.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Underpants, I will wager you the rostering deal (for want of a better word.......the AoA signed up for all that the Ghost who walks asked for.....hardly a negotiation) will bite us all on the arse given time........I am still asking myself why you all voted for it....it stinks !