DEFO/Conditions of Service 2007 Hot Oil
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetset,
What concerns me is that although the AOA GC have not given this agreement a ringing endorsement, they have put it to the membership for a vote.
In previous correspondence, the AOA intimated that as the two parties were so far apart on the topic of 'Extension of Retirement Age Beyond 55', it was not worth them putting anything to the membership because they could not be confident of a positive vote.
By inference, then, the AOA GC have put the agreement on DEFO and CoS 07 up for a vote to the membership, and by proxy, support the agreement. In fairly extensive discussions and emails with both the President of the AOA and the Treasurer, it was evident that they support this agreement. (For those that can, check out the AOA Forum for details of these discussions) I can understand that they may be protective of the postion they negotiated, but faced with the arguments I put to them, they still back the agreement.
It is up to the membership to make the very clear point to our AOA GC and the Company, that we will not, as a body, sanction presenting New Joiners with lesser CoS than we enjoy at present.
To be perfectly selfish about it, were we to allow the Company to proceed in this way, we would be reducing our own level of expectation in any upcoming pay negotiations because the Company could claim that CoS 07 now represented where the market was at. We would have no show of a positive outcome.
I cannot entertain voting for allowing lesser CoS to be offered to present or future colleagues, and I hope this agreement is voted down comprehensively.
What concerns me is that although the AOA GC have not given this agreement a ringing endorsement, they have put it to the membership for a vote.
In previous correspondence, the AOA intimated that as the two parties were so far apart on the topic of 'Extension of Retirement Age Beyond 55', it was not worth them putting anything to the membership because they could not be confident of a positive vote.
By inference, then, the AOA GC have put the agreement on DEFO and CoS 07 up for a vote to the membership, and by proxy, support the agreement. In fairly extensive discussions and emails with both the President of the AOA and the Treasurer, it was evident that they support this agreement. (For those that can, check out the AOA Forum for details of these discussions) I can understand that they may be protective of the postion they negotiated, but faced with the arguments I put to them, they still back the agreement.
It is up to the membership to make the very clear point to our AOA GC and the Company, that we will not, as a body, sanction presenting New Joiners with lesser CoS than we enjoy at present.
To be perfectly selfish about it, were we to allow the Company to proceed in this way, we would be reducing our own level of expectation in any upcoming pay negotiations because the Company could claim that CoS 07 now represented where the market was at. We would have no show of a positive outcome.
I cannot entertain voting for allowing lesser CoS to be offered to present or future colleagues, and I hope this agreement is voted down comprehensively.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, It is clearly a bad deal this CoS07 with DEFO. BScaler you have convinced me to vote "NO". But what of the others?
Why do you feel RP07 is a bad deal?
Why do you feel age 60 is wrong?
Why do you feel RP07 is a bad deal?
Why do you feel age 60 is wrong?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpdude
I have not addressed RP07 orAge 60, except to say that we should not agree to everything and then talk about pay. For the simple reason that, having given everything away, what have we got to negotiate with?
What would happen in any pay negotiation under these circumstances is that the Company would demand 'something in return' for an increase in pay, and having given everything else away, we would just have to fly our aircraft more!
As I have said before, we gave the Company a Housing agreement, but no pay talks were forthcoming. We gave the Company Freighter Crewing,but still no pay talks. The AOA resolved the difficult, thorny and highly emotional issue of the 49ers, but still no pay talks. (See any trend developing?)
If we give them CoS 07, and RP07 and Age 60, maybe they will talk about pay, but only in return for more work. And our expectations would have been lowered anyway because we would have just agreed to allow the Company to offer new Joiners a reduced CoS and salary package!
Like I say, I have stated no opinion for the topics you mention specifically. I intend to focus on CoS 07 and my efforts to have them comprehensively voted down.
I have not addressed RP07 orAge 60, except to say that we should not agree to everything and then talk about pay. For the simple reason that, having given everything away, what have we got to negotiate with?
What would happen in any pay negotiation under these circumstances is that the Company would demand 'something in return' for an increase in pay, and having given everything else away, we would just have to fly our aircraft more!
As I have said before, we gave the Company a Housing agreement, but no pay talks were forthcoming. We gave the Company Freighter Crewing,but still no pay talks. The AOA resolved the difficult, thorny and highly emotional issue of the 49ers, but still no pay talks. (See any trend developing?)
If we give them CoS 07, and RP07 and Age 60, maybe they will talk about pay, but only in return for more work. And our expectations would have been lowered anyway because we would have just agreed to allow the Company to offer new Joiners a reduced CoS and salary package!
Like I say, I have stated no opinion for the topics you mention specifically. I intend to focus on CoS 07 and my efforts to have them comprehensively voted down.
BScaler,
You have put a very fair case against COS07 which is well worth debate and discussion. I have read the responses in the AOA forums which have explained/rebuted a number of your points but not all.
I don't see you accepting those statements yet you expect everyone to accept yours!
I also see you putting words into the GC's mouth
"AOA GC have not given this agreement a ringing endorsement, they have put it to the membership for a vote.
In previous correspondence, the AOA intimated that as the two parties were so far apart on the topic of 'Extension of Retirement Age Beyond 55', it was not worth them putting anything to the membership because they could not be confident of a positive vote.
By inference, then, the AOA GC have put the agreement on DEFO and CoS 07 up for a vote to the membership, and by proxy, support the agreement"
The GC have stated that this is the best they can negotiate and have given the unexpurgated facts without spin for the members to vote on. I now see you putting spin on and words into others mouths. Not very edifying!!
Lets have all the arguments for and against, without any spin, and let the members decide on the facts which way to vote.
You have put a very fair case against COS07 which is well worth debate and discussion. I have read the responses in the AOA forums which have explained/rebuted a number of your points but not all.
I don't see you accepting those statements yet you expect everyone to accept yours!
I also see you putting words into the GC's mouth
"AOA GC have not given this agreement a ringing endorsement, they have put it to the membership for a vote.
In previous correspondence, the AOA intimated that as the two parties were so far apart on the topic of 'Extension of Retirement Age Beyond 55', it was not worth them putting anything to the membership because they could not be confident of a positive vote.
By inference, then, the AOA GC have put the agreement on DEFO and CoS 07 up for a vote to the membership, and by proxy, support the agreement"
The GC have stated that this is the best they can negotiate and have given the unexpurgated facts without spin for the members to vote on. I now see you putting spin on and words into others mouths. Not very edifying!!
Lets have all the arguments for and against, without any spin, and let the members decide on the facts which way to vote.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB
What I have put forth here is not 'spin'. Characterising the negotiating that has taken place as 'Growth Talks' is Company 'spin'. And the AOA GC signed up to it. I do feel concerned about that, as should fellow members of the AOA.
I am not putting words into anyones mouth either. If I have quoted anyone, it is what they have said or written.
In my correspondence, I have indicated where I disagree with the AOA GC position, and I have given my reasons. In many areas it is a case of 'agreeing to disagree' because my position, compared to the AOA GC's position on this agreement come from different perspectives. Different starting points, if you will.
It is up to the membership to decide which of the two points of view, (or indeed any other point of view), is more valid.
What I have put forth here is not 'spin'. Characterising the negotiating that has taken place as 'Growth Talks' is Company 'spin'. And the AOA GC signed up to it. I do feel concerned about that, as should fellow members of the AOA.
I am not putting words into anyones mouth either. If I have quoted anyone, it is what they have said or written.
In my correspondence, I have indicated where I disagree with the AOA GC position, and I have given my reasons. In many areas it is a case of 'agreeing to disagree' because my position, compared to the AOA GC's position on this agreement come from different perspectives. Different starting points, if you will.
It is up to the membership to decide which of the two points of view, (or indeed any other point of view), is more valid.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bloggs,
You wrote a lengthy one on RP07 - but we are discussing CoS 07 here.
Maybe you could start another thread with your post on this subject, and perhaps remove this one, as it does 'muddy the waters' being in this thread.
You wrote a lengthy one on RP07 - but we are discussing CoS 07 here.
Maybe you could start another thread with your post on this subject, and perhaps remove this one, as it does 'muddy the waters' being in this thread.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Scaler
I believe that Rostering should form part of our COS, case in point about our court case if it ever comes around. But I will start a different thread.
It does not matter where you put it, it is all a crap deal. I hope the members can see through it.
B Scaler, you should join the committee.
I believe that Rostering should form part of our COS, case in point about our court case if it ever comes around. But I will start a different thread.
It does not matter where you put it, it is all a crap deal. I hope the members can see through it.
B Scaler, you should join the committee.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aaaggghhh
We should not vote for anything that has the words "will endevour to", or "under normal circumstances". Guys new to all this must read that as "will never happen".
What is the definition or requirements that S.Os have to meet to take a DEFO position??? My point is that, if an S.O in HKG is qualified to take up a F.O position in HKG, then why shouldnt he be good for a DEFO slot?? (eg an S.O with 14 months in company and say Dash 8 Fo time, around 2500 hours...can he get a DEFO slot?)
Any room for shafting in the rules will be pursued with much gusto by the company!!!!
What is the definition or requirements that S.Os have to meet to take a DEFO position??? My point is that, if an S.O in HKG is qualified to take up a F.O position in HKG, then why shouldnt he be good for a DEFO slot?? (eg an S.O with 14 months in company and say Dash 8 Fo time, around 2500 hours...can he get a DEFO slot?)
Any room for shafting in the rules will be pursued with much gusto by the company!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
I see your point. However, in order to allow everyone to focus on one thing at a time, I would advocate concentrating debate on one topic at a time.
It can be quite a complicated issue to get your head around. What I would not like to see happen is someone take a cursory glance at all this, decide that it doesn't affect them, and vote for it just because that is what the AOA GC want them to do. That would be an 'apathy vote'.
Forget about new Joiners for a moment. This will affect every one of us current serving pilots in future if it is allowed to be voted in. Consider these points:
1) If CoS 07 is allowed to be put to New Joiners in January then we will have shot ourselves in the foot in subsequent pay negotiations because the Company will claim that CoS 07 is now where the market stands, and that we voted for it!
2) After B-Scale CoS were introduced in 1993, and despite Company assurances that A Scale CoS would be left alone, COSAP 94 came about, directly affecting A Scale CoS. For the worse. Remember eight weeks leave reduced to six weeks...? And what is more, A Scalers have not had a pay rise since, although they have had a pay cut.
We should, as the famous saying goes, study history so as to avoid it repeating itself. This CoS 07 agreement needs to be voted down comprehensively.
Thanks for starting a new thread!
I see your point. However, in order to allow everyone to focus on one thing at a time, I would advocate concentrating debate on one topic at a time.
It can be quite a complicated issue to get your head around. What I would not like to see happen is someone take a cursory glance at all this, decide that it doesn't affect them, and vote for it just because that is what the AOA GC want them to do. That would be an 'apathy vote'.
Forget about new Joiners for a moment. This will affect every one of us current serving pilots in future if it is allowed to be voted in. Consider these points:
1) If CoS 07 is allowed to be put to New Joiners in January then we will have shot ourselves in the foot in subsequent pay negotiations because the Company will claim that CoS 07 is now where the market stands, and that we voted for it!
2) After B-Scale CoS were introduced in 1993, and despite Company assurances that A Scale CoS would be left alone, COSAP 94 came about, directly affecting A Scale CoS. For the worse. Remember eight weeks leave reduced to six weeks...? And what is more, A Scalers have not had a pay rise since, although they have had a pay cut.
We should, as the famous saying goes, study history so as to avoid it repeating itself. This CoS 07 agreement needs to be voted down comprehensively.
Thanks for starting a new thread!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tifters
I think you will find under CoS 07 that current SOs, who meet DEFO hiring criteria, can apply for a DEFO slot on a base. However, in this case, the SO would have to sign up on CoS 07 terms. This is a Transition Period provision.
But whatever provisions the Transition Period provides to protect current pilots, we would be still voting to allow the Company to produce lesser CoS to New Joiners if this agreement passes.
I challenge you not just to look at your own circumstances, (and you can see how you would be affected in my post above), but also those of your future colleagues and AOA members.
I think you will find under CoS 07 that current SOs, who meet DEFO hiring criteria, can apply for a DEFO slot on a base. However, in this case, the SO would have to sign up on CoS 07 terms. This is a Transition Period provision.
But whatever provisions the Transition Period provides to protect current pilots, we would be still voting to allow the Company to produce lesser CoS to New Joiners if this agreement passes.
I challenge you not just to look at your own circumstances, (and you can see how you would be affected in my post above), but also those of your future colleagues and AOA members.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: home
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are all on individual contracts. The rules only state we cannot lower employees contract without their consent. Although we MAY not lower your COS (we could and you will have to take us to court, which may get heard in 5 years or so), we can certainly lower new hire Conditions of Service. After Jan. 01, 2007 if you like to join the “Same Team, Same Dream” these will be your conditions. Don’t like it, don’t come. Lots of pilots would enjoy living in their home country flying a widebody jet.
If we don’t get RP07, we WILL have to implement it anyway. We cannot afford to have 5-4-3 rule implemented as we will be desperately short of crew. We cannot allow the Reserve FDP to start at the 4 hour mark. We will be unable to complete the Australia flights if the duty starts at the 4 hour mark and someone goes sick. We will have to have more reserve but with shorter times so the 4 hour rule does not come into effect but that means more crew to get the task done. We don’t have the crews. We will not allow this to happen. We will have no other choice than to implement RP07.1
Although the RP 94 will take some time (completion of the court cases) we definitely cannot allow this to happen. If this is voted down, expect a revised RP07.1 in your mailbox.
You can sign letters to lawyers and take us to court. This will take at least 5 years to complete and by that time we will have the crew and would have negotiated a new agreement with the AOA that would put these court cases on hold or void altogether. You get the picture. This time we will void the court cases so they are not a thorn in the future.
You may as well sign these agreements, as this is the best you will receive in any case. You know it and I know it, so make it easy on everyone concerned. It’s less heartache. Just sign the agreements.
If you really look at the agreements closely there are some good things in it for you. The DEFO COS does not effect you so don’t worry about it. You should be worrying about YOU and YOUR FAMILY. That should be your only concern. Don’t put us in a position that we have to make an example out of more pilots. We don’t have a problem with that for the long term goal/growth of the Company. Think of your Family’s future as you don’t want to be one of the chosen few.
The Management
If we don’t get RP07, we WILL have to implement it anyway. We cannot afford to have 5-4-3 rule implemented as we will be desperately short of crew. We cannot allow the Reserve FDP to start at the 4 hour mark. We will be unable to complete the Australia flights if the duty starts at the 4 hour mark and someone goes sick. We will have to have more reserve but with shorter times so the 4 hour rule does not come into effect but that means more crew to get the task done. We don’t have the crews. We will not allow this to happen. We will have no other choice than to implement RP07.1
Although the RP 94 will take some time (completion of the court cases) we definitely cannot allow this to happen. If this is voted down, expect a revised RP07.1 in your mailbox.
You can sign letters to lawyers and take us to court. This will take at least 5 years to complete and by that time we will have the crew and would have negotiated a new agreement with the AOA that would put these court cases on hold or void altogether. You get the picture. This time we will void the court cases so they are not a thorn in the future.
You may as well sign these agreements, as this is the best you will receive in any case. You know it and I know it, so make it easy on everyone concerned. It’s less heartache. Just sign the agreements.
If you really look at the agreements closely there are some good things in it for you. The DEFO COS does not effect you so don’t worry about it. You should be worrying about YOU and YOUR FAMILY. That should be your only concern. Don’t put us in a position that we have to make an example out of more pilots. We don’t have a problem with that for the long term goal/growth of the Company. Think of your Family’s future as you don’t want to be one of the chosen few.
The Management
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmmm
Kenny boy, about 2000 pilots and about 50% in the union(give or take)
BusyB: I think it is still a case during the transition, that unassesed S.Os have to meet DEFO requirements. Now given that it takes 4 years to up grade, how about the guys around the 2 year mark who are unassesed but have a couple of thousand hours but not the DEFO requirements...why cant they get a slot? Given that in good times they would be qual to up grade in CX proper!!!! By the way, this does not affect me in least, just looking out for the S.Os....
Management....love your work.
BusyB: I think it is still a case during the transition, that unassesed S.Os have to meet DEFO requirements. Now given that it takes 4 years to up grade, how about the guys around the 2 year mark who are unassesed but have a couple of thousand hours but not the DEFO requirements...why cant they get a slot? Given that in good times they would be qual to up grade in CX proper!!!! By the way, this does not affect me in least, just looking out for the S.Os....
Management....love your work.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bob Tandy's place boozing with Darryl Hill
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kenfoggo.........
call the HKAOA they are only ones who have the exact numbers - cant understand why you would need the precise number though?
AF
call the HKAOA they are only ones who have the exact numbers - cant understand why you would need the precise number though?
AF
Join Date: May 2001
Location: HK
Age: 49
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering why there are not things in CoS07 that do not cost the company anything, but would make a difference to employees, like improvements to employee travel program?
BBB
BBB
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
numbers
Actually I can see where kenfoggo is coming from. I think that the numbers are 2010 pilots and 980 HKAOA members (+/- a very few).
Even with my pretty ropey maths (?math?) that's < 50%, assuming compete agreement by the union members. Not really a majority, is it?
Even with my pretty ropey maths (?math?) that's < 50%, assuming compete agreement by the union members. Not really a majority, is it?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bob Tandy's place boozing with Darryl Hill
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No majority required as the company only negotiates and accepts deals ratified by the HKAOA. Be it 10% of the pilot body or 100%.
So in general there is no point moaning if these latest developments are impossed on you and you did not vote against them even more so if you are not an AOA member!!!!!!!!!!!
As to why he needs the "exact" number of members - I smell a journo rat!
AF
So in general there is no point moaning if these latest developments are impossed on you and you did not vote against them even more so if you are not an AOA member!!!!!!!!!!!
As to why he needs the "exact" number of members - I smell a journo rat!
AF
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kane toed has it right and Alpha has it wrong. Just working out who will be screwing up my COS this time round. Like the idiots who agreed to make me work for 30 days a year for no credit. Well done! Carry on.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're not part of the union and/or you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain!
Last edited by cpdude; 5th Sep 2006 at 17:17.