CX-What's news?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Down South
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX-What's news?
Hallo All. Things seem to have gone very quiet. Anyone have any news as to when CX might be hiring again? I know that they've been interviewing and making a list of guys, but anyone know when these guys might expect calls?
Also, the AoA have suspended their industrial action and had a meeting with CX managment recently but everything seems to be quiet since then. What's the latest? And what of the ban?
Thanks
Also, the AoA have suspended their industrial action and had a meeting with CX managment recently but everything seems to be quiet since then. What's the latest? And what of the ban?
Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOA have suspended their industrial action in a show of good faith towards the Cx management, and the two sides have had talks about having talks. The AOA say that while the reinstatement of the 49 sacked pilots will be a point for discussion, it is not a precondition.
However, the management want the AOA to drop the recruitment ban which is still in place, and, from what I last read, this could prove to be the next stumbling block.
The best sources of information are the HKAOA website and the South China Morning Post website. Sorry I am not able to create any links to the sites.
Cheers
However, the management want the AOA to drop the recruitment ban which is still in place, and, from what I last read, this could prove to be the next stumbling block.
The best sources of information are the HKAOA website and the South China Morning Post website. Sorry I am not able to create any links to the sites.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just two points:-
1) If CX have no need for new pilots and are operating a holding pool, then why bother with a recruitment ban? surely this would only work if a)the company had courses to fill. b) Selected candidates respected the ban over personal considerations.
2) How long can the dispute possibly last? surely the shares must be depressed due to the stalemate between the company and the AOA. Until a conclusion which has a certain amount of satisfaction to both parties is reached, then the threat of further industrial action is still very real.
1) If CX have no need for new pilots and are operating a holding pool, then why bother with a recruitment ban? surely this would only work if a)the company had courses to fill. b) Selected candidates respected the ban over personal considerations.
2) How long can the dispute possibly last? surely the shares must be depressed due to the stalemate between the company and the AOA. Until a conclusion which has a certain amount of satisfaction to both parties is reached, then the threat of further industrial action is still very real.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good assessment as evidenced by today's SCMP.
A Cathay Pacific pilots' union leader said yesterday members may be forced to consider a return to industrial action after the company refused to meet them.
The general secretary of the Aircrew Officers' Association, John Findlay, accused the company of bad faith for refusing to talk unless the union made further concessions.
The union had suspended a work-to-rule campaign and a demand that sacked pilots be re-instated, in an effort to get Cathay to return to negotiations over pay and rostering.
Cathay previously had nominated the measures as "steps in the right direction", but after one meeting also demanded an end to "blacklisting" of new recruits.
Mr Findlay said the union wrote to Cathay this week refusing to lift the recruitment ban. He said the union was still waiting for a formal response from Cathay, although the company's public relations staff had indicated in the media that they would not negotiate while the ban remained.
Mr Findlay said the demand for the ban to be lifted came as a surprise after their initial meeting with Cathay ended with talk of plans to meet again.
"It seems every time we meet one of their requirements, they set another one . . . We have shown our good faith. We have shown our sincerity but we don't see any coming back," he said. "Clearly going back to industrial action is an option. But we would rather get back to the table."
Any decision to reinstate the work-to-rule campaign probably would not be made without a vote of members at an extraordinary general meeting.
Mr Findlay said the recruitment ban was a response to the sacking of 53 pilots in July and statements by the company that new staff would be hired to replace them. Under the terms of the ban, new recruits are barred from the union for life.
A spokeswoman for Cathay, Lisa Wong Lai-shan, said the company needed its staff to work together in the current downturn.
The company yesterday released passenger figures for October, with traffic volumes down 18 per cent compared with the same time last year. She said the pilots had not convinced the company they had the level of commitment needed to negotiate.
"It's up to them to convince us they have the sincerity. They have not done so yet . . . That's why there's no meeting scheduled," she said. "The AOA leaders have to consider the real situation and if they are sincere about holding talks we hope they will make a sensible decision."
Dropping the recruitment ban would be a "step in the right direction" to re-starting talks, Ms Wong said.
Asked if she could guarantee the company would make no further preconditions to talks if the union took that step, she said it was up to the union to demonstrate its sincerity.
Ms Wong said the company would not meet the pilots without their union taking further steps, such as dropping the ban.
-------------------------
Surely dropping the ban would not be the end of the world, and show the Cx folks that they were serious. If they then balked at talks any bans and work to rules could just as easily be reinstated
A Cathay Pacific pilots' union leader said yesterday members may be forced to consider a return to industrial action after the company refused to meet them.
The general secretary of the Aircrew Officers' Association, John Findlay, accused the company of bad faith for refusing to talk unless the union made further concessions.
The union had suspended a work-to-rule campaign and a demand that sacked pilots be re-instated, in an effort to get Cathay to return to negotiations over pay and rostering.
Cathay previously had nominated the measures as "steps in the right direction", but after one meeting also demanded an end to "blacklisting" of new recruits.
Mr Findlay said the union wrote to Cathay this week refusing to lift the recruitment ban. He said the union was still waiting for a formal response from Cathay, although the company's public relations staff had indicated in the media that they would not negotiate while the ban remained.
Mr Findlay said the demand for the ban to be lifted came as a surprise after their initial meeting with Cathay ended with talk of plans to meet again.
"It seems every time we meet one of their requirements, they set another one . . . We have shown our good faith. We have shown our sincerity but we don't see any coming back," he said. "Clearly going back to industrial action is an option. But we would rather get back to the table."
Any decision to reinstate the work-to-rule campaign probably would not be made without a vote of members at an extraordinary general meeting.
Mr Findlay said the recruitment ban was a response to the sacking of 53 pilots in July and statements by the company that new staff would be hired to replace them. Under the terms of the ban, new recruits are barred from the union for life.
A spokeswoman for Cathay, Lisa Wong Lai-shan, said the company needed its staff to work together in the current downturn.
The company yesterday released passenger figures for October, with traffic volumes down 18 per cent compared with the same time last year. She said the pilots had not convinced the company they had the level of commitment needed to negotiate.
"It's up to them to convince us they have the sincerity. They have not done so yet . . . That's why there's no meeting scheduled," she said. "The AOA leaders have to consider the real situation and if they are sincere about holding talks we hope they will make a sensible decision."
Dropping the recruitment ban would be a "step in the right direction" to re-starting talks, Ms Wong said.
Asked if she could guarantee the company would make no further preconditions to talks if the union took that step, she said it was up to the union to demonstrate its sincerity.
Ms Wong said the company would not meet the pilots without their union taking further steps, such as dropping the ban.
-------------------------
Surely dropping the ban would not be the end of the world, and show the Cx folks that they were serious. If they then balked at talks any bans and work to rules could just as easily be reinstated
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ban was put in place in response to the sacking of 53 people, and would remain until they were reinstated. The company never suggested that anyone hired from then on would be to replace these people, in fact more than 53 have started since then and another 30 or so to come prior to the freezing of courses. Blind Freddy can see that a new SO is not going to replace very experienced FOs and CPTs.
The AOA has said that it will unconditionally return to the negotiating table. But hang on by virtue of the fact that the ban is still in place shows that all the good faith they are professing to is a load crap, there is a condition and that is that 53 people are reinstated.
The company invited these people to reapply for a position with the company but the union (not the people themselves) said this wasn't accepteable unless they were hired back enmass. The company responded by saying fine they cannot ever apply again end of story. The union, for a second time, lost these people their jobs, well done.
As a final show of cowardliness they then made the job of fighting the company, not theirs, but anyone who is not a member of the union and not even an employee of the company ie new hopefulls.
The union is a bunch of cowardly militants who are working for their own agendas and not the good of their members. They have made unbelievable decisions that defy rational, intelligent thinking, they will lose this one and hopefully the membership will see the management for what it is and get rid of it, it is doing far more harm than good.
The AOA has said that it will unconditionally return to the negotiating table. But hang on by virtue of the fact that the ban is still in place shows that all the good faith they are professing to is a load crap, there is a condition and that is that 53 people are reinstated.
The company invited these people to reapply for a position with the company but the union (not the people themselves) said this wasn't accepteable unless they were hired back enmass. The company responded by saying fine they cannot ever apply again end of story. The union, for a second time, lost these people their jobs, well done.
As a final show of cowardliness they then made the job of fighting the company, not theirs, but anyone who is not a member of the union and not even an employee of the company ie new hopefulls.
The union is a bunch of cowardly militants who are working for their own agendas and not the good of their members. They have made unbelievable decisions that defy rational, intelligent thinking, they will lose this one and hopefully the membership will see the management for what it is and get rid of it, it is doing far more harm than good.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Union" you speak of is 1250 out of 1500 pilots at CX. We voted over 90% in favour of the action we are now taking. Democracy at it's very best! If we the members don't agree with the path the leadership takes we'll tell them to change paths.
Are you angry because the recruitment ban gets in the way of your plans? When management finally decide to negoitate in good faith and stick to their agreements it will once again be a good place to work.
Are you angry because the recruitment ban gets in the way of your plans? When management finally decide to negoitate in good faith and stick to their agreements it will once again be a good place to work.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW no infact it doesn't affect my plans at all.
I am just amazed that the union cannot see the light and go towards it rather than stumble around in the darkness. The company can hold out as long as it likes to get what it wants, unconditionally. Hasn't the current world situation shown us anything ? Noone is indispensible, we are all very easily and quickly replacable. Go and ask the 53 if no job is better than what they had.
You respond well to your own statement. The company said it will return to the negotiating table when the union comes with no preconditions and stops the "industrial action" (which I might add most were not actually putting into practice). The only good faith shown so far is by the company in having the first round of talks when the union still had preconditions ie the recruitment ban. You cannot claim that you have done what was asked by the company and that they keep changing the conditions, you have decided (90%) that you would only satisfy part of the conditions and than cry foul when you are caught out.
The ban will only cause division within the company and give the hard liners someone to take their aggression out on, as can be seen by the number still starting and the numbers being added to the hold file, it is not discouraging people from joining.
As I said before it is a cowardly move by the union and a cowardly move by 90% of 1250 people. Fight your own fight don't get others to do it for you. You are the ones taking the position of 53 people by accepting an upgrade, not someone starting their career.
I am not angry just frustrated at the stupidity and what it is doing to our company.
I am just amazed that the union cannot see the light and go towards it rather than stumble around in the darkness. The company can hold out as long as it likes to get what it wants, unconditionally. Hasn't the current world situation shown us anything ? Noone is indispensible, we are all very easily and quickly replacable. Go and ask the 53 if no job is better than what they had.
You respond well to your own statement. The company said it will return to the negotiating table when the union comes with no preconditions and stops the "industrial action" (which I might add most were not actually putting into practice). The only good faith shown so far is by the company in having the first round of talks when the union still had preconditions ie the recruitment ban. You cannot claim that you have done what was asked by the company and that they keep changing the conditions, you have decided (90%) that you would only satisfy part of the conditions and than cry foul when you are caught out.
The ban will only cause division within the company and give the hard liners someone to take their aggression out on, as can be seen by the number still starting and the numbers being added to the hold file, it is not discouraging people from joining.
As I said before it is a cowardly move by the union and a cowardly move by 90% of 1250 people. Fight your own fight don't get others to do it for you. You are the ones taking the position of 53 people by accepting an upgrade, not someone starting their career.
I am not angry just frustrated at the stupidity and what it is doing to our company.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me exactly how many AOA members have accepted commands/upgrades since the 49/53 were dismissed and what justification there is for union acceptance
of this? Really just curious.
of this? Really just curious.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orisis,
For someone who claims to work for CX you have allowed yourself to become remarkably un-informed about this dispute.
Following the AOA's vote in June to commence "Limited" Industrial Action in July the Company stated that it would not talk to the AOA under such threat. This is/was the company's precondition to talks. This was pre-49ers and therefore pre-IFALPA embargo. The AOA has formally suspended the "Limited" Industrial Action and the company has plucked out of the sky another precondition. Be in no doubt, the company has not done so because they really care about a IFALPA blacklist (they would prefer if all their pilots were blacklisted!). The company clearly believe they are in the ascendancy and the only words they wish to hear from the AOA is "unconditional surrender".
You state that the AOA has as a precondition the reinstatement of the 53. This is not true.
You state; " The company invited these people to reapply for a position, but the union (not the people themselves) said this wasn't acceptable". I assume this gem comes from the DFO's note headed "Talks about Talks" The heading said it all, they were general talks between low level representatives and could never be construed as a forum where proposals were made or rejected. KB wrote that yet another "generous" proposal was rejected by the "aloof" AOA committee; he clearly hopes that the gullible will turn against the committee.
The 49ers themselves are represented on the committee (much to the chagrin of company), so for you to infer they have no say is false. Moreover, the banter in the Foodhall is that the USA guys fancy their chances in the $100m litigation.
As for the blacklist. Whilst the AOA does not condone acts of vandalism/ abuse, the AOA is essentially a private club and can pick and choose its members. If you do not obey the rules or meet the criteria, even though you may have justified objections to such rules, you can't join. But in such circumstances, why would anyone wish to join?
For someone who claims to work for CX you have allowed yourself to become remarkably un-informed about this dispute.
Following the AOA's vote in June to commence "Limited" Industrial Action in July the Company stated that it would not talk to the AOA under such threat. This is/was the company's precondition to talks. This was pre-49ers and therefore pre-IFALPA embargo. The AOA has formally suspended the "Limited" Industrial Action and the company has plucked out of the sky another precondition. Be in no doubt, the company has not done so because they really care about a IFALPA blacklist (they would prefer if all their pilots were blacklisted!). The company clearly believe they are in the ascendancy and the only words they wish to hear from the AOA is "unconditional surrender".
You state that the AOA has as a precondition the reinstatement of the 53. This is not true.
You state; " The company invited these people to reapply for a position, but the union (not the people themselves) said this wasn't acceptable". I assume this gem comes from the DFO's note headed "Talks about Talks" The heading said it all, they were general talks between low level representatives and could never be construed as a forum where proposals were made or rejected. KB wrote that yet another "generous" proposal was rejected by the "aloof" AOA committee; he clearly hopes that the gullible will turn against the committee.
The 49ers themselves are represented on the committee (much to the chagrin of company), so for you to infer they have no say is false. Moreover, the banter in the Foodhall is that the USA guys fancy their chances in the $100m litigation.
As for the blacklist. Whilst the AOA does not condone acts of vandalism/ abuse, the AOA is essentially a private club and can pick and choose its members. If you do not obey the rules or meet the criteria, even though you may have justified objections to such rules, you can't join. But in such circumstances, why would anyone wish to join?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HOHO Kong
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam,
When the original (and the same) ban on recruitment came from IFALPA, it was targeted towards IFALPA members. You are so right concerning AOA as a "private club" and can choose their members, but if the new recruits were not IFALPA member, why the huss and fuss??
The main point us NON CX employees has it that your own fellow pilots are taking upgrades, thus filling in the spots of the original 49ers. If they had not been dismissed, there wouldn't be such an abundance in upgrade slots. Who is to actually blame, the new SOs or your "fellow mates" that are now captain or FO, right into the slots of the dismissed.
I hope nothing better than to see this mess sorted out before Xmas, as we all deserve a good holiday.
PS, AOA only has so many members now because the pilots are scared they will be sacked as well. Were it that the AOA is actually 100%, I would expect to see more than 98% members voting in favor of the AOA. So far, I have not seen such a thing and with this EGM coming up next month, we will all see how strong it is.
Cheers, and always the best of luck.
When the original (and the same) ban on recruitment came from IFALPA, it was targeted towards IFALPA members. You are so right concerning AOA as a "private club" and can choose their members, but if the new recruits were not IFALPA member, why the huss and fuss??
The main point us NON CX employees has it that your own fellow pilots are taking upgrades, thus filling in the spots of the original 49ers. If they had not been dismissed, there wouldn't be such an abundance in upgrade slots. Who is to actually blame, the new SOs or your "fellow mates" that are now captain or FO, right into the slots of the dismissed.
I hope nothing better than to see this mess sorted out before Xmas, as we all deserve a good holiday.
PS, AOA only has so many members now because the pilots are scared they will be sacked as well. Were it that the AOA is actually 100%, I would expect to see more than 98% members voting in favor of the AOA. So far, I have not seen such a thing and with this EGM coming up next month, we will all see how strong it is.
Cheers, and always the best of luck.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smallwing,
Thank you for the kind wishes.
The HKAOA is affiliated to IFALPA, therefore a new recruit joining in breach of the IFALPA ban, irrespective of his/her current union membership, is banned/blacklisted from joining any IFALPA affiliated union, including the HKAOA.
The point raised in the second paragraph is in my view valid. However, a cornerstone of this dispute has always been the survival of the HKAOA as a Union. Should the HKAOA fail to secure the return of the 49ers, then the HKAOA as a Trade Union in reality ceases; the members know this, and the company certainly knows this! Therefore in the context of CX, the ban becomes a non-event because as people disregard union/IFALPA directives, the union weakens and eventually fails; the buzz phrase is, "you get the Union you deserve."
I cannot agree with your views on the support level within the AOA. You must remember that CX pilots come from a host of backgrounds, cultures and each has an almost unique expectation of their CX "careers". It is human nature that not everyone will agree on a course of action. I have been surprised by the high level of support shown to the AOA (2 out 3 pilots within the company agree with the action)and I have been equally surprised by the tolerance shown by the membership to dissenters. I disagree that pilots are scared. I think the membership wishes to consider the consequences of 9/11 and whether this is the time to be engaging in any form of Industrial Action.
Time will tell.
Thank you for the kind wishes.
The HKAOA is affiliated to IFALPA, therefore a new recruit joining in breach of the IFALPA ban, irrespective of his/her current union membership, is banned/blacklisted from joining any IFALPA affiliated union, including the HKAOA.
The point raised in the second paragraph is in my view valid. However, a cornerstone of this dispute has always been the survival of the HKAOA as a Union. Should the HKAOA fail to secure the return of the 49ers, then the HKAOA as a Trade Union in reality ceases; the members know this, and the company certainly knows this! Therefore in the context of CX, the ban becomes a non-event because as people disregard union/IFALPA directives, the union weakens and eventually fails; the buzz phrase is, "you get the Union you deserve."
I cannot agree with your views on the support level within the AOA. You must remember that CX pilots come from a host of backgrounds, cultures and each has an almost unique expectation of their CX "careers". It is human nature that not everyone will agree on a course of action. I have been surprised by the high level of support shown to the AOA (2 out 3 pilots within the company agree with the action)and I have been equally surprised by the tolerance shown by the membership to dissenters. I disagree that pilots are scared. I think the membership wishes to consider the consequences of 9/11 and whether this is the time to be engaging in any form of Industrial Action.
Time will tell.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam, I think your right about Sept 11, the rules have changed. Prior to ,your average recruit would have had about 3500-4500 hours, now its round the 10k over half on jet. CXmust be rubbing thier hands together.
Not a favourable posn for the AOA. Whats the solution ? I dont know, but I hope they sort it out soon , we NEED jobs.
Not a favourable posn for the AOA. Whats the solution ? I dont know, but I hope they sort it out soon , we NEED jobs.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: LALALAND
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lift the ban and then negotiate.
What impact has the ban had anyway? The freeze negates it anyway.
Negotiate and prosper. A job is better than no job. Ask Ansett, Sabena, Swissair, Flightwest, Kendells, Hazo's, Aeropelican, Delta, AA, Virgin Atlantic, and BA pilots what they think of preserving the privilige of having a well paid and respected airline flying position.
How much respect does a union create for hardlining their issues at the possible expense of it members in times of crisis, be it economic, military or terrorist/security.
C'mon people the rest of the industry looking in just shake their heads in amazement/disbelief at the direction your dispute is going in these world times.
I look forward to a mutually beneficial outcome for you pilots and your management.
What impact has the ban had anyway? The freeze negates it anyway.
Negotiate and prosper. A job is better than no job. Ask Ansett, Sabena, Swissair, Flightwest, Kendells, Hazo's, Aeropelican, Delta, AA, Virgin Atlantic, and BA pilots what they think of preserving the privilige of having a well paid and respected airline flying position.
How much respect does a union create for hardlining their issues at the possible expense of it members in times of crisis, be it economic, military or terrorist/security.
C'mon people the rest of the industry looking in just shake their heads in amazement/disbelief at the direction your dispute is going in these world times.
I look forward to a mutually beneficial outcome for you pilots and your management.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
King Kong,
Your post indicates that you believe the AOA leadership is taking a petty stand at the "possible expense" of the membership. This is not so, the AOA has invested much time and money in forums (internet, meetings, video conferencing, Family support groups) by which the membership and leadership communicate.
It is not a case of lift the ban and negotiate (I wish it was). The signposts from the company are clear; they do not wish to negotiate: they only wish to hear of the AOA's surrender. The company continue to demote those who displease them (not a good time to misread your roster or get the squits 2 hours before sign-on!). Probably the most visible signpost was the company's reluctance/failure to roster the AOA's negotiators for the recent, abbreviated, talks.
IMHO this dispute is now about the company ripping the teeth out of the AOA before the gobal picture changes (again) such as to allow the AOA to use its fangs.
Your post indicates that you believe the AOA leadership is taking a petty stand at the "possible expense" of the membership. This is not so, the AOA has invested much time and money in forums (internet, meetings, video conferencing, Family support groups) by which the membership and leadership communicate.
It is not a case of lift the ban and negotiate (I wish it was). The signposts from the company are clear; they do not wish to negotiate: they only wish to hear of the AOA's surrender. The company continue to demote those who displease them (not a good time to misread your roster or get the squits 2 hours before sign-on!). Probably the most visible signpost was the company's reluctance/failure to roster the AOA's negotiators for the recent, abbreviated, talks.
IMHO this dispute is now about the company ripping the teeth out of the AOA before the gobal picture changes (again) such as to allow the AOA to use its fangs.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam
Trust the nom de plume is not the result of a dustup with the real Liam on the flight from Perth a couple back!!
The thing that is still missing is trust. The old teaching the pig to sing problem again...
Noone doubts the important role the AOA plays in an airline the size CX has become. The pastoral issues are very important and, I repeat myself, ignored these days by the prefects.
I don't think the company is trying to de-fang the AOA. IMHO the table needs to be cleared and new faces need to talk. There is too much "invested" face at stake to make it possible for the current cast to make any real progress.Civility is possible but what is required is a hug and a kiss.
Clean the decks on both sides otherwise it will continue to be seen as a re-run of Oliver Twist.
Trust the nom de plume is not the result of a dustup with the real Liam on the flight from Perth a couple back!!
The thing that is still missing is trust. The old teaching the pig to sing problem again...
Noone doubts the important role the AOA plays in an airline the size CX has become. The pastoral issues are very important and, I repeat myself, ignored these days by the prefects.
I don't think the company is trying to de-fang the AOA. IMHO the table needs to be cleared and new faces need to talk. There is too much "invested" face at stake to make it possible for the current cast to make any real progress.Civility is possible but what is required is a hug and a kiss.
Clean the decks on both sides otherwise it will continue to be seen as a re-run of Oliver Twist.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam, I'm sorry that you appear not to see the trees for the woods. I don't believe I am uninformed on the situation, just trying to look at the reality of the situation, sorry but it may not agree with yours.
In your second paragraph you say that the company would actually prefer all pilots to be blacklisted - so is this the unions idea of the goodwill that they are constantly spouting, ensure all future pilots are blacklisted and help the company?
You tell me that it is simply not true that the return of those that were dismissed is a precondition. However in your response to smallwing you say that unless those that were dismissed are returned the union will cease to exist. Therefore it is not a precondition that the union exists when the cards fall?
You fifth paragraph also is one that causes me concern. The union membership is being represented by people who are dismissed employees trying to get their jobs back. Are they really working for the good of the membership or themselves?
Your final sentence clears it up to all those deciding weather or not to join in these difficult times. This is certainly the only company in the world taking people on the rest are getting rid of them.
As is always the case in these discussions you refuse to even acknowledge smallwings request for information on those accepting upgrades so I will. SMALLWING - I don't know exact numbers but since July well more than 53 union members have accepted and commenced upgrade training (FACT), they will not be shunned by the "private boys club" nor will they be blacklisted, instead some poor unfortunate new joiner will feel the wrath simply because his number came up at an inconvenient moment.
Liam you say that the blacklisting doesn't really affect the union, why have it then? In your words it is only assisting the company in dividing the workforce - ever heard of divide and conquer?
You may say that I am being ignorant but I believe my opinions are a realistic view of the facts without the emotions. Angry no, frustrated yes. As many of us do, I have friends who are being put in the unenviable position, they are not deciding to reject the position, just concerned at the childish and unprofessional way they will be treated by a minority.
In your second paragraph you say that the company would actually prefer all pilots to be blacklisted - so is this the unions idea of the goodwill that they are constantly spouting, ensure all future pilots are blacklisted and help the company?
You tell me that it is simply not true that the return of those that were dismissed is a precondition. However in your response to smallwing you say that unless those that were dismissed are returned the union will cease to exist. Therefore it is not a precondition that the union exists when the cards fall?
You fifth paragraph also is one that causes me concern. The union membership is being represented by people who are dismissed employees trying to get their jobs back. Are they really working for the good of the membership or themselves?
Your final sentence clears it up to all those deciding weather or not to join in these difficult times. This is certainly the only company in the world taking people on the rest are getting rid of them.
As is always the case in these discussions you refuse to even acknowledge smallwings request for information on those accepting upgrades so I will. SMALLWING - I don't know exact numbers but since July well more than 53 union members have accepted and commenced upgrade training (FACT), they will not be shunned by the "private boys club" nor will they be blacklisted, instead some poor unfortunate new joiner will feel the wrath simply because his number came up at an inconvenient moment.
Liam you say that the blacklisting doesn't really affect the union, why have it then? In your words it is only assisting the company in dividing the workforce - ever heard of divide and conquer?
You may say that I am being ignorant but I believe my opinions are a realistic view of the facts without the emotions. Angry no, frustrated yes. As many of us do, I have friends who are being put in the unenviable position, they are not deciding to reject the position, just concerned at the childish and unprofessional way they will be treated by a minority.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: LALALAND
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that there is a definate role for unions in aviation. I believe that management also have to manage and not intimidate.
I have read the Internet Web site newsletter and press clippings of the union. My understanding is that the company is just asking for the ban to be lifted before negotiations take place. Why is this unreasonable. If it is the last step for negotiations to recommence why not do it. If then the talks do not proceed directly then why not reinstigate it?? Show the faith and see what happens.
It was easy to introduce so why keep it up as a block to talks? I do not understand the wisdom of this. Why is it seen as such a threat to talks?
The languauge used by the union is classsic chest puffing stuff that is used in times where groups need solidarity and support. As used by Preachers, dictators, politicians and terrorist leaders. Mentioning the Romans and the Aztecs......really..... please!
Pilots are pilots not Pontius!! Crucify the members past and future. Et tu Brute!
Hail reason!!
If you have a captured audience in a desperate situation one craves for direction and hope.
Unfortunately the words of rhetoric can be misleading and damaging. How is the Taliban feeling now. Remember the threats and jibes they made before the conflict as to how they will crush the USA and it's people. Mmmm.
I hope you guys work it out for yourselves.
Keep it up Osiris.
Now how about an upgrade for everybody here.
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: King Kong ]
I have read the Internet Web site newsletter and press clippings of the union. My understanding is that the company is just asking for the ban to be lifted before negotiations take place. Why is this unreasonable. If it is the last step for negotiations to recommence why not do it. If then the talks do not proceed directly then why not reinstigate it?? Show the faith and see what happens.
It was easy to introduce so why keep it up as a block to talks? I do not understand the wisdom of this. Why is it seen as such a threat to talks?
The languauge used by the union is classsic chest puffing stuff that is used in times where groups need solidarity and support. As used by Preachers, dictators, politicians and terrorist leaders. Mentioning the Romans and the Aztecs......really..... please!
Pilots are pilots not Pontius!! Crucify the members past and future. Et tu Brute!
Hail reason!!
If you have a captured audience in a desperate situation one craves for direction and hope.
Unfortunately the words of rhetoric can be misleading and damaging. How is the Taliban feeling now. Remember the threats and jibes they made before the conflict as to how they will crush the USA and it's people. Mmmm.
I hope you guys work it out for yourselves.
Keep it up Osiris.
Now how about an upgrade for everybody here.
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: King Kong ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Osiris. So 50+ paid up AOA members accepting upgrade training since July. I still don't really understand how this will help the 49ers get their jobs back???
Spineless - the 'fools' that run this airline have overseen virtually uninterupted success, with profit margins the envy of 99% of other carriers, since the 70's and yes EVERYONE played their part in this success.
We are still a well run airline with an excellent product and a debt/equity ratio which means we can survive the current downturn, this is not by accident!
Please do not confuse the current poor relationship between management and aircrew with an ability to sucessfully run an airline. Unfortunately a desire to drive down crew (and other) costs has led to this
state of affairs. I have no doubt crew could have been managed better but the fundemental objective, to drive these costs down, has inevitably led to an erosion of previously enjoyed benefits = unhappy bunnies.
With rumours of the DB brigade strirring up again I despair. I like Traffic's idea of new faces but sadly don't think it will happen.
Is there any light at the end of this bloody long tunnel?
Spineless - the 'fools' that run this airline have overseen virtually uninterupted success, with profit margins the envy of 99% of other carriers, since the 70's and yes EVERYONE played their part in this success.
We are still a well run airline with an excellent product and a debt/equity ratio which means we can survive the current downturn, this is not by accident!
Please do not confuse the current poor relationship between management and aircrew with an ability to sucessfully run an airline. Unfortunately a desire to drive down crew (and other) costs has led to this
state of affairs. I have no doubt crew could have been managed better but the fundemental objective, to drive these costs down, has inevitably led to an erosion of previously enjoyed benefits = unhappy bunnies.
With rumours of the DB brigade strirring up again I despair. I like Traffic's idea of new faces but sadly don't think it will happen.
Is there any light at the end of this bloody long tunnel?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spineless, I don't disagree at all. Most sensible people in the airline realise it takes two to tango. The perception (repeat perception) of many in the rest of the organisation is that the AOA are determined to undermine the airline for their own purposes. They will argue negotiation failed thus they were left with no alternative. The vicious circle then begins, and we end up with the entrenched positions we now see.
One thing which has the rest of us non flight ops types a bit puzzled....
Maybe simplistic but..... A scales have had significant pay cuts (okay in exchange for stock options which everyone who has them thinks worthless but the rest of us would like)...the B scales have had nothing but good news in terms of pay and conditions. Why is it then we are told the B scale are the most unhappy and seeting in DB. Words of one syllable please.
Thanks
One thing which has the rest of us non flight ops types a bit puzzled....
Maybe simplistic but..... A scales have had significant pay cuts (okay in exchange for stock options which everyone who has them thinks worthless but the rest of us would like)...the B scales have had nothing but good news in terms of pay and conditions. Why is it then we are told the B scale are the most unhappy and seeting in DB. Words of one syllable please.
Thanks
