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
Gentlemen
What we definitely can do as AOA members, is vote down the CoS 07 agreement that the AOA GC negotiated with the Company, in as comprehensive a manner as possible, to show both parties the level of dissatisfaction within the membership at what has been arrived at.
We cannot simply allow the Company to present New Joiners with lesser CoS than we enjoy at present. Particularly in the present happy era of airline expansion.
What we definitely can do as AOA members, is vote down the CoS 07 agreement that the AOA GC negotiated with the Company, in as comprehensive a manner as possible, to show both parties the level of dissatisfaction within the membership at what has been arrived at.
We cannot simply allow the Company to present New Joiners with lesser CoS than we enjoy at present. Particularly in the present happy era of airline expansion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpdude
The CoS 07 agreement represents the best the AOA GC felt they could get from the Company. Whether it is 'take-it-or-leave-it' is open to debate.
I don't believe so. I think a strong vote against this agreement would send a clear message that the AOA membership is against bringing in lesser CoS for New Joiners, and the more comprehensively this is voted down the better our chances in future negotiations.
The AOA GC would point out the different scenarios;
1. where the Company may simply impose the new CoS anyway, and
2. where the Company may do worse and become belligerent.
My counter to these scenarios would be;
1. that if the Company did simply impose the new CoS on New Joiners, then at least we would have grounds, due to our rejection of CoS 07, to mount a legal challenge to their imposition, and
2. that what I advocate in voting down CoS 07 cannot be construed in any way as industrial action which precipitated the Company's previous harsh reaction. And in any case, I believe the Company genuinely does not wish to go back to the days of the 49ers. Particularly at a time of expansion.
I contend that fear of what may happen if we turn this agreement down should not mandate that we simply vote for it.
The CoS 07 agreement should be seen for what it is - an attempt to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners to make expansion even more profitable for the Company than it will already be under existing CoS. We should not vote to allow the Company to accomplish this at the expense of our future colleagues and AOA members.
The CoS 07 agreement represents the best the AOA GC felt they could get from the Company. Whether it is 'take-it-or-leave-it' is open to debate.
I don't believe so. I think a strong vote against this agreement would send a clear message that the AOA membership is against bringing in lesser CoS for New Joiners, and the more comprehensively this is voted down the better our chances in future negotiations.
The AOA GC would point out the different scenarios;
1. where the Company may simply impose the new CoS anyway, and
2. where the Company may do worse and become belligerent.
My counter to these scenarios would be;
1. that if the Company did simply impose the new CoS on New Joiners, then at least we would have grounds, due to our rejection of CoS 07, to mount a legal challenge to their imposition, and
2. that what I advocate in voting down CoS 07 cannot be construed in any way as industrial action which precipitated the Company's previous harsh reaction. And in any case, I believe the Company genuinely does not wish to go back to the days of the 49ers. Particularly at a time of expansion.
I contend that fear of what may happen if we turn this agreement down should not mandate that we simply vote for it.
The CoS 07 agreement should be seen for what it is - an attempt to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners to make expansion even more profitable for the Company than it will already be under existing CoS. We should not vote to allow the Company to accomplish this at the expense of our future colleagues and AOA members.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Moon
Age: 23
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cos '07: Help me understand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks:
I've admittedly only been at CX for a few months. As a U.S. based freighter pilot, it appears that the Cos '07 gives the U.S. freight dogs approximately a $40,000 per year raise above the current freighter rates.
Clearly, the rates in the "out years" are lower than the current passenger F/O rates. However, even with the increases being front-loaded, and with the reduced "out-year" rates, total career earnings are HIGHER under Cos '07.
I ran the salary numbers out for the next 13 years with 3 different sets of assumptions comparing the current Cos and Cos '07. The result? Not as bleak as is being posted here.
The 3 scenarios were 1) no upgrade to Capt. - ever. 2) upgrade to Capt. in year 3, and 3) upgrade to Capt. in year 5. The assumptions I made under the current Cos analysis had me transitioning to passenger pay as F/O in year 4, and to passenger Captain pay in year 9.
Scenario #1 - The current Cos pays $17,916 more over 13 years.
Scenario #2 - Cos '07 pays $99,480 more over 13 years.
Scenario #3 - Cos '07 pays $89,940 more over 13 years.
Your mileage may vary.
Besides having to give up 2 weeks of annual vacation initially, what am I missing here??? Even though the "out-year" rates are lower than the current passenger Cos, the near-term increases are very, very significant. Are the posts opposing Cos '07 all coming from the passenger crews?
Bracing to receive return fire...
baseddude
Folks:
I've admittedly only been at CX for a few months. As a U.S. based freighter pilot, it appears that the Cos '07 gives the U.S. freight dogs approximately a $40,000 per year raise above the current freighter rates.
Clearly, the rates in the "out years" are lower than the current passenger F/O rates. However, even with the increases being front-loaded, and with the reduced "out-year" rates, total career earnings are HIGHER under Cos '07.
I ran the salary numbers out for the next 13 years with 3 different sets of assumptions comparing the current Cos and Cos '07. The result? Not as bleak as is being posted here.
The 3 scenarios were 1) no upgrade to Capt. - ever. 2) upgrade to Capt. in year 3, and 3) upgrade to Capt. in year 5. The assumptions I made under the current Cos analysis had me transitioning to passenger pay as F/O in year 4, and to passenger Captain pay in year 9.
Scenario #1 - The current Cos pays $17,916 more over 13 years.
Scenario #2 - Cos '07 pays $99,480 more over 13 years.
Scenario #3 - Cos '07 pays $89,940 more over 13 years.
Your mileage may vary.
Besides having to give up 2 weeks of annual vacation initially, what am I missing here??? Even though the "out-year" rates are lower than the current passenger Cos, the near-term increases are very, very significant. Are the posts opposing Cos '07 all coming from the passenger crews?
Bracing to receive return fire...
baseddude
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baseddudes post indicates EXACTLY why the AOA will never be able to achieve an increase in conditions for the majority of the pilots. The company has successfully divided the workforce into little self-interest groups, making it impossible to get all the membership pulling in the same direction.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Cocks has a point. The AOA and the pilot group would probably benefit from having a negotiator at the table. In the same line of thought, why not have accountants/actuaries go over the numbers and find out what is the financial impact for the pilot group and the Company. Seems like we're lacking deeper analysis of the long term impact, with "numbers" to back up our perspective...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the Gen Sec and Sec be running the numbers for us? What are we paying them for? Like I said, we can put the money to better use.
Having a Professional Negotiator talk to the company is a great idea. The only problem is the company will only negotiate with the pilots. I believe this was brought up years ago and the company said they will not talk and it was pilots only. I wonder why??
I think the company is looking out for the better interest of the pilots.
Having a Professional Negotiator talk to the company is a great idea. The only problem is the company will only negotiate with the pilots. I believe this was brought up years ago and the company said they will not talk and it was pilots only. I wonder why??
I think the company is looking out for the better interest of the pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
baseddude
Your numbers are good for comparing your present situation with what CoS 07 would offer you. And I agree, it is an attractive deal for current freighter guys wherever you might be based, the US or elsewhere.
This is because I contend that the freighter pay and CoS, as they stand right now, are below where the market is, and the Company knows this. The Company has pitched CoS 07 at a level that is more attractive to you.
If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, what the Company are trying to get us to agree to, is for them to open up a new recruitment stream directly onto the passenger fleet, but at lower pay rates and CoS than what we currently enjoy.
Do me a favour and compare your current salary with that of a USAB pay scale, making the same assumptions you made in your CoS 07 comparison, and let me know the numbers.
I will guarantee that they will knock the socks off the comparison you made with CoS 07!
And that is my point. The Company want to have freighter guys fly passenger aircraft and vice versa, but pay pilots less than the current pay scales for passenger aircraft.
I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask the Company to pay current salary for the job we do now on the passenger fleet for New Joiners, if that is where they wish to place them to help with their growth strategy.
Your numbers are good for comparing your present situation with what CoS 07 would offer you. And I agree, it is an attractive deal for current freighter guys wherever you might be based, the US or elsewhere.
This is because I contend that the freighter pay and CoS, as they stand right now, are below where the market is, and the Company knows this. The Company has pitched CoS 07 at a level that is more attractive to you.
If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, what the Company are trying to get us to agree to, is for them to open up a new recruitment stream directly onto the passenger fleet, but at lower pay rates and CoS than what we currently enjoy.
Do me a favour and compare your current salary with that of a USAB pay scale, making the same assumptions you made in your CoS 07 comparison, and let me know the numbers.
I will guarantee that they will knock the socks off the comparison you made with CoS 07!
And that is my point. The Company want to have freighter guys fly passenger aircraft and vice versa, but pay pilots less than the current pay scales for passenger aircraft.
I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask the Company to pay current salary for the job we do now on the passenger fleet for New Joiners, if that is where they wish to place them to help with their growth strategy.
Last edited by BScaler; 9th Sep 2006 at 03:59. Reason: emphasis
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WeeJohnPooPongMcplop
I agree that intoducing another set of CoS would not be a good idea for future aircrew unity, and would promote the Company's 'divide and conquer' strategy.
Which is another reason not to vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.
I agree that intoducing another set of CoS would not be a good idea for future aircrew unity, and would promote the Company's 'divide and conquer' strategy.
Which is another reason not to vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bloggs
Yes why do we pay the Exec so much to let them run the AoA the way they do? That is a very good question.... is an answer possible....... probably not.
BusyB
I quote
"A fairly serious accusation to make of the GC and one that I'm sure you wouldn't have the guts to make face to face."
I have talked to one of the principle exec members "Face to Face" about the above comment. He laughed of course and said it wasn't true but I find it hard that the AoA would even put a proposal like this up for voting when it clearly is a C-Scale for new joiners and conditions that you would find at low-cost carrier airlines.
Why are we going backwards in giving everything away and not getting anything in return. I understand that the Company said we'll talk after the CoS and RP07 have been voted on to discuss salary.....but why? We give away an negotiating bargin chip and then we can't negotiate the salary.
To the AoA
Why not combine the CoS and RP07 and salary talks into a updated CoS? The company is wearing away our conditions by taking little bits of the contract and negotiating on new terms. In little pieces it doesn't look bad but eventually it turns sour. The worrying thing is we have seen this all before in other ways. For example how many of you have done a CRM course and they look at different accident models. Like the Swiss Cheese version. Little holes appear and then eventually with the right conditions an accident will happen. Isn't this like the current negotiations? The company takes little chunks out of the contract and soon enough what will the pilots get? Think about that one.
Basedude
Sure you might get a few extra dollars but the rest of the pilot group then loses out. The company is trying to divide to pilot group. We can't let this happen, I have seen this too many times in other companies. Please don't let this happen. Why not hold out and everyone get a better deal?
Mr Bloggs
The AoA in the distant past use to have negotiators but then they became too effective and the company didn't like it and sort to get rid of them. (albeit with a very weak AoA board at the time - might have been the presi at the time can't remember, long time ago).
Since then the company has liked talking to pilots (much easier to control - why is that I wonder??????
)
I say bring back the professional negotiators. Bring in a tougher AoA team. Go forward in talks not backwards. Everybody should benefit from new CoS and RP07 not just a few select members. I'll be damned if I let the AoA dictate to me that these talks are beneficial to further growth. Who's growth?????
As aways.... thoughts and comments?
Yes why do we pay the Exec so much to let them run the AoA the way they do? That is a very good question.... is an answer possible....... probably not.
BusyB
I quote
"A fairly serious accusation to make of the GC and one that I'm sure you wouldn't have the guts to make face to face."
I have talked to one of the principle exec members "Face to Face" about the above comment. He laughed of course and said it wasn't true but I find it hard that the AoA would even put a proposal like this up for voting when it clearly is a C-Scale for new joiners and conditions that you would find at low-cost carrier airlines.
Why are we going backwards in giving everything away and not getting anything in return. I understand that the Company said we'll talk after the CoS and RP07 have been voted on to discuss salary.....but why? We give away an negotiating bargin chip and then we can't negotiate the salary.
To the AoA
Why not combine the CoS and RP07 and salary talks into a updated CoS? The company is wearing away our conditions by taking little bits of the contract and negotiating on new terms. In little pieces it doesn't look bad but eventually it turns sour. The worrying thing is we have seen this all before in other ways. For example how many of you have done a CRM course and they look at different accident models. Like the Swiss Cheese version. Little holes appear and then eventually with the right conditions an accident will happen. Isn't this like the current negotiations? The company takes little chunks out of the contract and soon enough what will the pilots get? Think about that one.
Basedude
Sure you might get a few extra dollars but the rest of the pilot group then loses out. The company is trying to divide to pilot group. We can't let this happen, I have seen this too many times in other companies. Please don't let this happen. Why not hold out and everyone get a better deal?
Mr Bloggs
The AoA in the distant past use to have negotiators but then they became too effective and the company didn't like it and sort to get rid of them. (albeit with a very weak AoA board at the time - might have been the presi at the time can't remember, long time ago).
Since then the company has liked talking to pilots (much easier to control - why is that I wonder??????
)I say bring back the professional negotiators. Bring in a tougher AoA team. Go forward in talks not backwards. Everybody should benefit from new CoS and RP07 not just a few select members. I'll be damned if I let the AoA dictate to me that these talks are beneficial to further growth. Who's growth?????
As aways.... thoughts and comments?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Cocks
You express exactly the same sentiments as I am trying to get across.
CoS 07 is not good for New Joiners, not good for most of the presently employed pilots, (although it does have one or two 'inducements', particularly for freighter FOs who are way below market in their pay and CoS anyway), and we should not vote to allow the Company to be able to introduce them.
Profitable growth will still occur by bringing in FOs to the passenger fleet on current CoS. Increased profitability should not be attained at the expense of New Joiners.
You express exactly the same sentiments as I am trying to get across.
CoS 07 is not good for New Joiners, not good for most of the presently employed pilots, (although it does have one or two 'inducements', particularly for freighter FOs who are way below market in their pay and CoS anyway), and we should not vote to allow the Company to be able to introduce them.
Profitable growth will still occur by bringing in FOs to the passenger fleet on current CoS. Increased profitability should not be attained at the expense of New Joiners.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could certainly try to hire a Professional Negotiator but I suspect NR would state “we will not negotiate with a Professional”. He said the same thing when the CPU was formed. You could have 100% members in the CPU, but he will not negotiate.
Divide and Conquer, give a little to one group and take away from the other. It always works. Here anyway.
Divide and Conquer, give a little to one group and take away from the other. It always works. Here anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Moon
Age: 23
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Commawnder BScaler:
I might have been imprecise with my earlier post. I WAS making a comparison of the current USAB freighter scale (combined with passenger scale Cos 99 pay at the appropriate longevity) to the Cos 07. Did you mean that I should compare Cos 07 with Cos 99 passenger rates??? For MY situation, and for similarly situated freight dogs, we can only look at current freighter rates, and assume transition to Cos 99 passenger rates at a later date (which I did). And Cos 07 seems to win.
I have a nagging feeling that I have not analyzed the pay terms correctly. And I hoped to elicit a correction from more knowledgeable CX pilots. Did I make a mistake?
To Commawnder Two Cocks:
You certainly have my respect for your anatomical endowment.
And while it was likely not of your doing, you are to be congratulated!! I hope you can put both of them to meaningful use.
When a pilot earns $63,000 USD per year, and the Cos 07 offers $110,000 USD per year, that's hardly "a few dollars more". That's actually over a 74% pay raise!! (Sorry, not having a proper command of English after over 4 decades of practice, I just can't bring myself to call it a "pay rise").
Am I to take it that the CX freight dogs, who presently earn 54% of their passenger counterparts (not to mention the lack of the 13th month discretionary bonus, housing allowance, education allowance, etc. etc PLUS the 15.5% of the additional 46% of earnings) should one now "take one for the team" so that the entire group can benefit????? Come on! Even I can figure that one out! If one expects to be truly persuasive when telling a junior pilot to reject a huge pay increase in favor of “the good of the many”, it’s usually helpful to pat the junior guy on the head and promise him that “you’ll get yours someday, sonny (or for the Queen’s subjects, “you’ll get yours someday, 'my dear boy.'”)
While I'm hardly a management apologist, I'd say anyone would have a difficult time credibly blaming management for the PRESENT disparity in pay rates between the freighter and the passenger fleets.
In this business, "it's all about me". Unfortunately, I don’t know YOUR situation. However, I would be interested in hearing how Cos affects YOU going forward – particularly when you have the option of remaining on your current Cos.
Interestingly, as I think about the poor beleaguered new joiners who have to suffer under Cos 07, I think about my friend who has an upcoming phase 2 interview for freighter DEFO. Under Cos 07, his starting pay will be over $40,000 USD higher than under the current Cos – (and nearly as much in his second and third years). That money is worth FAR more than $120,000 received 10+ years from now when you consider the present value of money. Also, because of his age, my friend would never make it to the lofty heights of the top Cos 99 Captain pay at CX. So any discussion of current (Cos99) 17th year Captain pay rates is moot. Please explain why he shouldn’t be happy about the earlier payoff in Cos 07.
In the final analysis, Cos 07 is fait accompli. The only question to be answered is whether one should choose it as an option going forward, or not. And that answer hinges on two things: dollars and cents.
As I stated before, I remain open to the possibility that my reading comprehension is a little lacking with Cos 07. And I would be happy to receive a correction if I’m wrong.
baseddude
I might have been imprecise with my earlier post. I WAS making a comparison of the current USAB freighter scale (combined with passenger scale Cos 99 pay at the appropriate longevity) to the Cos 07. Did you mean that I should compare Cos 07 with Cos 99 passenger rates??? For MY situation, and for similarly situated freight dogs, we can only look at current freighter rates, and assume transition to Cos 99 passenger rates at a later date (which I did). And Cos 07 seems to win.
I have a nagging feeling that I have not analyzed the pay terms correctly. And I hoped to elicit a correction from more knowledgeable CX pilots. Did I make a mistake?
To Commawnder Two Cocks:
You certainly have my respect for your anatomical endowment.
And while it was likely not of your doing, you are to be congratulated!! I hope you can put both of them to meaningful use.When a pilot earns $63,000 USD per year, and the Cos 07 offers $110,000 USD per year, that's hardly "a few dollars more". That's actually over a 74% pay raise!! (Sorry, not having a proper command of English after over 4 decades of practice, I just can't bring myself to call it a "pay rise").
Am I to take it that the CX freight dogs, who presently earn 54% of their passenger counterparts (not to mention the lack of the 13th month discretionary bonus, housing allowance, education allowance, etc. etc PLUS the 15.5% of the additional 46% of earnings) should one now "take one for the team" so that the entire group can benefit????? Come on! Even I can figure that one out! If one expects to be truly persuasive when telling a junior pilot to reject a huge pay increase in favor of “the good of the many”, it’s usually helpful to pat the junior guy on the head and promise him that “you’ll get yours someday, sonny (or for the Queen’s subjects, “you’ll get yours someday, 'my dear boy.'”)
While I'm hardly a management apologist, I'd say anyone would have a difficult time credibly blaming management for the PRESENT disparity in pay rates between the freighter and the passenger fleets.
In this business, "it's all about me". Unfortunately, I don’t know YOUR situation. However, I would be interested in hearing how Cos affects YOU going forward – particularly when you have the option of remaining on your current Cos.
Interestingly, as I think about the poor beleaguered new joiners who have to suffer under Cos 07, I think about my friend who has an upcoming phase 2 interview for freighter DEFO. Under Cos 07, his starting pay will be over $40,000 USD higher than under the current Cos – (and nearly as much in his second and third years). That money is worth FAR more than $120,000 received 10+ years from now when you consider the present value of money. Also, because of his age, my friend would never make it to the lofty heights of the top Cos 99 Captain pay at CX. So any discussion of current (Cos99) 17th year Captain pay rates is moot. Please explain why he shouldn’t be happy about the earlier payoff in Cos 07.
In the final analysis, Cos 07 is fait accompli. The only question to be answered is whether one should choose it as an option going forward, or not. And that answer hinges on two things: dollars and cents.
As I stated before, I remain open to the possibility that my reading comprehension is a little lacking with Cos 07. And I would be happy to receive a correction if I’m wrong.
baseddude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
baseddude
I am advocating that you should be on the same pay scale as your passenger counterpart, not the 'in between' CoS 07 step that the Company proposes. I hope I have made that clear in other areas I have posted.
Your current CoS and pay are below market and I believe that the Company recognises this. You, as well as New Joiners coming in as DEFOs, should be availed the same CoS and pay as we currently enjoy for carrying the same responsibilities.
I know it would be hard for you to vote against a deal that is going to give you a pay rise anyway. I personally think you deserve what we currently get paid on the passenger fleet - even moreso if your job description were to change to flying passenger aircraft as well.
I think New Joiners also deserve the same for bringing their experience and type-rating to the Company, and doing the same job as we do now to help with expansion.
I am advocating that you should be on the same pay scale as your passenger counterpart, not the 'in between' CoS 07 step that the Company proposes. I hope I have made that clear in other areas I have posted.
Your current CoS and pay are below market and I believe that the Company recognises this. You, as well as New Joiners coming in as DEFOs, should be availed the same CoS and pay as we currently enjoy for carrying the same responsibilities.
I know it would be hard for you to vote against a deal that is going to give you a pay rise anyway. I personally think you deserve what we currently get paid on the passenger fleet - even moreso if your job description were to change to flying passenger aircraft as well.
I think New Joiners also deserve the same for bringing their experience and type-rating to the Company, and doing the same job as we do now to help with expansion.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major Ooops
Baseddude :
I have done some math ( or more than one ie maths ) and cannot work out where you get your numbers ( or sums )
If you join on freighter USAB and spend your alotted time on the freighter and then move to a US base on current usab CoS. You will earn $786552.00
If you join on the freighter and transfer to the pax after two years (although if I have read the new DEFO currectly you are required to stay on the freighter until you are within 6 mos of your pax fleet trnsfr date) then transfer to COS 07 you earn $732 228.00
If you join on DEFO 07 after year 8 you have earned $745 776.00
That is $40776 less over eight years or aprox $5000 us per year pay cut.
However once on COS 07 you will now recieve COS 07 USAB Captains pay which is also considerably lower. You will lose another $4000 US per year from your Captain's wage or $31934 after eight years as a Captain.
Please correct me anyone if I have erred ! Still want to sign your pay away ?
Cheers
I have done some math ( or more than one ie maths ) and cannot work out where you get your numbers ( or sums )
If you join on freighter USAB and spend your alotted time on the freighter and then move to a US base on current usab CoS. You will earn $786552.00
If you join on the freighter and transfer to the pax after two years (although if I have read the new DEFO currectly you are required to stay on the freighter until you are within 6 mos of your pax fleet trnsfr date) then transfer to COS 07 you earn $732 228.00
If you join on DEFO 07 after year 8 you have earned $745 776.00
That is $40776 less over eight years or aprox $5000 us per year pay cut.
However once on COS 07 you will now recieve COS 07 USAB Captains pay which is also considerably lower. You will lose another $4000 US per year from your Captain's wage or $31934 after eight years as a Captain.
Please correct me anyone if I have erred ! Still want to sign your pay away ?
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Moon
Age: 23
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major Oops
BScaler and Five Green:
First, Commawnder BScaler: Thanks for the clarification. You and I are in agreement on this point.
However, any call to arms for the pilot group to reject Cos 07, and for the AOA to renegotiate it must also include the recognition of the AOA's impotence and ineptitude. (Here's where The Management stands and applauds. )
I'm not really in the mood to go on an AOA bashing rant today. But suffice it to say that I'm unimpressed. Most AOA members tell me that their main reason for membership is that it's a "get out of jail free" card should they become incarcerated in a foreign country after an aircraft accident or incident. I've not yet heard a pilot say they joined the AOA for the sake of unity, or to improve the lot of the Cathay pilots' lives, or to protect their job. I think everyone knows the AOA can't (or won't) do any of that. Frankly, I'm a little skeptical that the AOA/IFALPA could get a pilot out of jail!
The divisions within the pilot group are a creation of the AOA. Those divisions should be a source of extreme embarrasment for the Cathay pilot group. But nobody seems terribly bothered by the mishmash of conditions of service that govern the industrial lives of different members of the group.
(More applause by The Management )
Uh oh. I think that bordered on a rant. Sorry.
At any rate, thanks for the brotherly thoughts on the pay rates. Like I said, we're in agreement on this subject.
Commawnder Five Green:
Thanks very much for taking the time to do the math(s?)
.
Language barriers notwithstanding, I think we might be onto something. Your reply was exactly the type of response I hoped to elicit. Allow me to briefly clarify my assumptions and method (such as it is).
First, because the current Cos requires 3 years on the freighter after qualification, I assumed transition to passenger F/O pay in year 5 (that is, the first full 4 years on freighter pay). This was partly out of laziness, but also partly out of recognition that there may be a delay between the bidding moratorium and the availability of a vacancy.
Second, because of my age (which is NOT 5, despite my pprune profile), I ran the numbers out to 13 years - not 8. This may explain the differences in our results.
Third, I'm in "pay year 1". So my assumptions only considered transitioning to Cos 07 beginning in pay year 2 - not pay year 8.
Maybe it's easier just to show you my scenarios. I've broken up my spreadsheet to give a side-by side comparison. Sorry about the formatting. After several attempts I couldn't get it to look any better than it does.
The asterisks by the Cos 99 column indicate the year of transition to passenger pay. First scenario: F/O for life. As you can see, Cos 07 costs me (or a similarly situated pilot) almost $17K. Again, keep in mind the present value of money as the higher rates are enjoyed early. If you don't like the present valuation, call it an $18,000 loss.
Cos 99 Cos 07
No Upgrade No Upgrade
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 81000 115296
5 126840 * 117600
6 129240 * 119952
7 131640 * 119952
8 133680 * 119952
9 135840 * 119952
10 137760 * 119952
11 137760 * 119952
12 137760 * 119952
13 137760 * 119952
Total 1497792 1479876
Difference -17916
Scenario 2: Upgrade to Commawnd in year 5. For the Cos 99 numbers, I assumed freighter pay until year 9. Cos 07 pays nearly $90K more (again, considering the value of early higher pay rates, it's actually more).
Cos 99 Cos 07
Upgrade in yr 5 Upgrade in yr 5
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 81000 115296
5 87036 117600
6 123996 155004
7 126480 158100
8 129012 161268
9 198120 * 164484
10 199560 * 167772
11 201000 * 171132
12 202320 * 174552
13 203640 * 178044
Total 1760676 1850616
Difference 89940
Scenario #3: Upgrade in year 3 (with recent Commawnd failure rates of 100%, I know this is a reach, but a fellah can dream, right?). Again, for Cos 99 I assumed transitioning to passenger Capt. pay at year 9. Cos 07 wins by nearly $100K - again, not including the "present value" discussion.
Cos 99 Cos 07
Upgrade in yr 3 Upgrade in yr 3
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 123996 155004
5 126480 158100
6 129012 161268
7 131592 164484
8 134220 167772
9 203640 * 171132
10 204960 * 174552
11 206280 * 178044
12 207600 * 181608
13 208800 * 185244
Total 1885092 1984572
Difference 99480
If you've actually stayed awake to this point, thanks very much for looking at this. As I said before, I think Cos 07 is fait accompli. I won't be voting for, or against it. I don't believe discussions about voting on it are at all relevant. Airline managements are clever enough to "do the math" on votes before even entering a tentative agreement with unions, knowing exactly what it takes to obtain a passing vote. And Cathay management is more shrewd than most. (Applause again by The Management )
For me, the discussion is one of strict economics. Is "this" worth more than "that", or vice versa? Your input is appreciated. And your mileage may vary...
baseddude
First, Commawnder BScaler: Thanks for the clarification. You and I are in agreement on this point.
However, any call to arms for the pilot group to reject Cos 07, and for the AOA to renegotiate it must also include the recognition of the AOA's impotence and ineptitude. (Here's where The Management stands and applauds.
)I'm not really in the mood to go on an AOA bashing rant today. But suffice it to say that I'm unimpressed. Most AOA members tell me that their main reason for membership is that it's a "get out of jail free" card should they become incarcerated in a foreign country after an aircraft accident or incident. I've not yet heard a pilot say they joined the AOA for the sake of unity, or to improve the lot of the Cathay pilots' lives, or to protect their job. I think everyone knows the AOA can't (or won't) do any of that. Frankly, I'm a little skeptical that the AOA/IFALPA could get a pilot out of jail!
The divisions within the pilot group are a creation of the AOA. Those divisions should be a source of extreme embarrasment for the Cathay pilot group. But nobody seems terribly bothered by the mishmash of conditions of service that govern the industrial lives of different members of the group.
(More applause by The Management
)Uh oh. I think that bordered on a rant. Sorry.
At any rate, thanks for the brotherly thoughts on the pay rates. Like I said, we're in agreement on this subject.
Commawnder Five Green:
Thanks very much for taking the time to do the math(s?)
.Language barriers notwithstanding, I think we might be onto something. Your reply was exactly the type of response I hoped to elicit. Allow me to briefly clarify my assumptions and method (such as it is).
First, because the current Cos requires 3 years on the freighter after qualification, I assumed transition to passenger F/O pay in year 5 (that is, the first full 4 years on freighter pay). This was partly out of laziness, but also partly out of recognition that there may be a delay between the bidding moratorium and the availability of a vacancy.
Second, because of my age (which is NOT 5, despite my pprune profile), I ran the numbers out to 13 years - not 8. This may explain the differences in our results.
Third, I'm in "pay year 1". So my assumptions only considered transitioning to Cos 07 beginning in pay year 2 - not pay year 8.
Maybe it's easier just to show you my scenarios. I've broken up my spreadsheet to give a side-by side comparison. Sorry about the formatting. After several attempts I couldn't get it to look any better than it does.
The asterisks by the Cos 99 column indicate the year of transition to passenger pay. First scenario: F/O for life. As you can see, Cos 07 costs me (or a similarly situated pilot) almost $17K. Again, keep in mind the present value of money as the higher rates are enjoyed early. If you don't like the present valuation, call it an $18,000 loss.
Cos 99 Cos 07
No Upgrade No Upgrade
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 81000 115296
5 126840 * 117600
6 129240 * 119952
7 131640 * 119952
8 133680 * 119952
9 135840 * 119952
10 137760 * 119952
11 137760 * 119952
12 137760 * 119952
13 137760 * 119952
Total 1497792 1479876
Difference -17916
Scenario 2: Upgrade to Commawnd in year 5. For the Cos 99 numbers, I assumed freighter pay until year 9. Cos 07 pays nearly $90K more (again, considering the value of early higher pay rates, it's actually more).
Cos 99 Cos 07
Upgrade in yr 5 Upgrade in yr 5
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 81000 115296
5 87036 117600
6 123996 155004
7 126480 158100
8 129012 161268
9 198120 * 164484
10 199560 * 167772
11 201000 * 171132
12 202320 * 174552
13 203640 * 178044
Total 1760676 1850616
Difference 89940
Scenario #3: Upgrade in year 3 (with recent Commawnd failure rates of 100%, I know this is a reach, but a fellah can dream, right?). Again, for Cos 99 I assumed transitioning to passenger Capt. pay at year 9. Cos 07 wins by nearly $100K - again, not including the "present value" discussion.
Cos 99 Cos 07
Upgrade in yr 3 Upgrade in yr 3
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 123996 155004
5 126480 158100
6 129012 161268
7 131592 164484
8 134220 167772
9 203640 * 171132
10 204960 * 174552
11 206280 * 178044
12 207600 * 181608
13 208800 * 185244
Total 1885092 1984572
Difference 99480
If you've actually stayed awake to this point, thanks very much for looking at this. As I said before, I think Cos 07 is fait accompli. I won't be voting for, or against it. I don't believe discussions about voting on it are at all relevant. Airline managements are clever enough to "do the math" on votes before even entering a tentative agreement with unions, knowing exactly what it takes to obtain a passing vote. And Cathay management is more shrewd than most. (Applause again by The Management
)For me, the discussion is one of strict economics. Is "this" worth more than "that", or vice versa? Your input is appreciated. And your mileage may vary...
baseddude
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: N.A.
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compare apples to apples
baseddude,
I hate to burst your bubble, but I think you are looking at the "Senior First Officer" column under CoS 07. If you are a year 1 First Officer now, you have 4 more years before becoming a Senior FO. To quote CoS 99...
BTW, the is one of the most misunderstood items at CX. A lot of guys think that as soon as you become a RPIC, you are a SFO. This is not true -- You simply become a SFO after serving 4 years as a FO.
So, I think when you do your calculations again, and use year 2 "First Officer" (which is $74,304) and the other appropriate figures under CoS 07, you might see things a little differently...
I hate to burst your bubble, but I think you are looking at the "Senior First Officer" column under CoS 07. If you are a year 1 First Officer now, you have 4 more years before becoming a Senior FO. To quote CoS 99...
6.2 a. On completion of First Officer Year 4, eligibility for promotion to Senior First Officer is dependent upon the Officer holding a valid Hong Kong Airliine Transport Pilot's Licence and the performance of the Officer.
So, I think when you do your calculations again, and use year 2 "First Officer" (which is $74,304) and the other appropriate figures under CoS 07, you might see things a little differently...
Last edited by dogleg; 9th Sep 2006 at 15:36.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about all those scenarios or for that matter your numbers...but do you really want to stay a freight dog? Most actually transfer to the pax fleet in year 4 so lets look at a US based freighter F/O going to pax in year 4 and a command starting year 10. Here are the actual numbers!
Year CoS99 CoS07
1 63,504 72,852
2 69,504 74,304
3 75,504 75,792
Pax
4 113,160 86,028
5 116,040 97,644
6 118,920 110,820
7 121,680 113,040
8 124,320 115,296
9 126,840 117,600
Total 929,472 863,376 (-66,096)
Cpt Pax
10 181,560 155,004
11 184,800 158,100
12 194,880 161,268
13 198,120 164,484
15 199,560 167,772
Total 958,920 806,628 (-152,292)
So a 15 year career with a year 10 promotion to Captain will gross you $218,388 more on CoS99 than CoS07!
They give you a little up front for the first 2 years but then they take away for a lifetime.
Year CoS99 CoS07
1 63,504 72,852
2 69,504 74,304
3 75,504 75,792
Pax
4 113,160 86,028
5 116,040 97,644
6 118,920 110,820
7 121,680 113,040
8 124,320 115,296
9 126,840 117,600
Total 929,472 863,376 (-66,096)
Cpt Pax
10 181,560 155,004
11 184,800 158,100
12 194,880 161,268
13 198,120 164,484
15 199,560 167,772
Total 958,920 806,628 (-152,292)
So a 15 year career with a year 10 promotion to Captain will gross you $218,388 more on CoS99 than CoS07!
They give you a little up front for the first 2 years but then they take away for a lifetime.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Moon
Age: 23
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevermind!
Dogleg and Cpdude:
Dear Commawnder Dogleg:
You are absolutely correct. I am indeed looking at the senior F/O rates.
As you say, this is misunderstood. And evidently Cos 99 is not the only place to find clarification on this point. Hmmmm...
I did as you suggested, and here are the results:
For scenario #1 - No upgrade. F/O for life
Cos 07 = $-163956 as compared to Cos 99 - Ouch!!
For scenario #2 - Upgrade in year 5
Cos 07 = $-33048 as compared to Cos 99
For scenario #3 - Upgrade in year 3
Cos 07 = $+25716 as compared to Cos 99
As I studied this, the Master Warning and Too Good to Be True lights were both flashing. That's why I brought it to pprune.
So if what we're saying here is true, you didn't burst my bubble at all. You provided just the sort of correction I was looking for. Thanks for that!
And if this is the best the AOA can manage after MONTHS of discussion with the company, I have even less faith in them than before!!!
I'll keep reading both Cos's for illumination. But in the absence of the type of benefit we've discussed here, two questions arise:
1. What current CX demographic WOULD benefit measurably from Cos 07?
2. Why would ANY current CX pilot, much less a majority of AOA members vote to approve Cos 07?
Call me crazy, but CX management isn't stupid. They wouldn't throw a stinking turd on the plate if they didn't believe that at least 1/2 of us would eat it.
I believe in the final analysis management could just impose Cos 07, and the AOA would sit in the corner sucking its thumb.
I still have the feeling I'm missing something...
(sound of shuffling papers)
Dear Commawnder Cpdude:
It appears dogleg has shown me the error of my ways. And I agree with the rates you detailed for your sample progression. Mine was a pretty fundamental error - and a very critical one, at that. Any ideas on the two questions I posted above to dogleg?
baseddude
Dear Commawnder Dogleg:
You are absolutely correct. I am indeed looking at the senior F/O rates.
As you say, this is misunderstood. And evidently Cos 99 is not the only place to find clarification on this point. Hmmmm...
I did as you suggested, and here are the results:
For scenario #1 - No upgrade. F/O for life
Cos 07 = $-163956 as compared to Cos 99 - Ouch!!
For scenario #2 - Upgrade in year 5
Cos 07 = $-33048 as compared to Cos 99
For scenario #3 - Upgrade in year 3
Cos 07 = $+25716 as compared to Cos 99
As I studied this, the Master Warning and Too Good to Be True lights were both flashing. That's why I brought it to pprune.
So if what we're saying here is true, you didn't burst my bubble at all. You provided just the sort of correction I was looking for. Thanks for that!
And if this is the best the AOA can manage after MONTHS of discussion with the company, I have even less faith in them than before!!!
I'll keep reading both Cos's for illumination. But in the absence of the type of benefit we've discussed here, two questions arise:
1. What current CX demographic WOULD benefit measurably from Cos 07?
2. Why would ANY current CX pilot, much less a majority of AOA members vote to approve Cos 07?
Call me crazy, but CX management isn't stupid. They wouldn't throw a stinking turd on the plate if they didn't believe that at least 1/2 of us would eat it.
I believe in the final analysis management could just impose Cos 07, and the AOA would sit in the corner sucking its thumb.
I still have the feeling I'm missing something...
(sound of shuffling papers)
Dear Commawnder Cpdude:
It appears dogleg has shown me the error of my ways. And I agree with the rates you detailed for your sample progression. Mine was a pretty fundamental error - and a very critical one, at that. Any ideas on the two questions I posted above to dogleg?
baseddude