DEFO/Conditions of Service 2007 Hot Oil

[cpdude]

Originally Posted by baseddude

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.

1. Direct benefit...NONE! Indirect benefit...see below.

2. ...because it doesn't affect them and it will create good/better relations with the company for negotiations of other issues. (very bad reason to accept)

You're right, CX management isn't stupid just sly. If this passes they will save money and the word on the street will be "starting salary has increased to $72,852 from $63,504".

[BScaler]

I know that most of the discussion here recently has been about USAB pay, but here is another general point about CoS 07 that not many people appear to understand.

CoS 07 have taken the top two FO pay steps out of what we have across all other current CoS pay scales.

A little history. If you look at A Scales, you will see that FO pay has about 18 steps (from memory). When B Scales were brought in this was reduced to 12 steps. Now, under CoS 07, the Company want to reduce it still further to 10 steps.

And this has been achieved in a very subtle manner...

Under current CoS we have JFO1 to JFO2; FO1 thru FO4; SFO1 thru SFO6; making 12 steps in total.

CoS 07 starts at FO1 thru FO4; then SFO1 thru SFO6; making 10 steps in total.

It thus appears that the bottom two steps have been removed in making up CoS 07 FO pay, but since JFO1 pay equals FO1 pay in CoS 07, it can be seen that it is the top two steps that have been eliminated.

What this means is that while expansion is ongoing, there should not be a problem, as time to command should mean most guys are upgraded before running out of pay steps. But if a slowdown were to occur, or a guy fail to make the grade to command, then Officers would miss out on two salary steps as a result.

This situation is admittedly evident from comparison of the pay scales, but it has not been 'spelled out' by the AOA GC as such, and I am disappointed that the membership is not being given this analysis straight up. We are being made to ferret it out by ourselves.

It is yet another clear degradation of CoS for New Joiners, and provides more justification for this agreement to be voted down.

[baseddude]

Mmmm, Beer!

Dear Commawnders Bscale and cpdude:

Looks like the beer's on me next time I'm in the gay bar. Thanks for your insights.

baseddude

[BScaler]

baseddude

I would not characterise CX management as stupid either. They are experienced, canny negotiators and they never give anything back that they claw from an agreement. Of this we need to be cognizant.

I think that the Company believe that they can get away with having this agreement ratified because they think that the majority of those voting will be apathetic, and seeing nothing overtly threatening to their own circumstances, will vote this agreement in. We need to fight apathy through education and discussion of the issues.

The AOA GC support the Company stance by holding out the mirage of pay negotiations when, as I have said before, it would be very unlikely, going off the Company track record, that these would materialise. And even if they did, we would have just shot ourselves in the foot by agreeing to new CoS with a lower pay scale that the Company could now claim as 'market'.

The AOA membership needs to send a very clear message to the Company and AOA GC alike that this agreement falls well short of the mark.

[Five Green]

The other major ooops

Baseddude:

The other major ooops you are making in your third scenario, is that the pay scales for Captain on CoS USAB 07 are aprox $30 000 US less per year. That's right $30 000 less per year look it up. So if you transfer to CoS 07 you will make considerably less over your career.

The company has wanted to reduce USAB for a long time. Now they are doing it under the premise of affordable expansion. Well if that is they case maybe we cannot afford to expand.

On the subjuect of the AOA. Are you even a menber ?

I am really tired of people bashing the AOA. Get in there and help. Do your part sign up for the forums and go to the meetings. This is the only way to have any representation whatsoever in China/Hong Kong/CX.

It may be weak compared to N. American associations/unions but it is all we have. We the AOA members make it what it is. We make it as strong or as weak as it is.

Also just because a motion or policy is being brought to a vote, that does not mean that the GC is completely in favour of it going through. All they have said is that it is as far as the company is willing to move on the offer. It is now up to us as AOA members to decide if we accept it. This deal may well get voted down. If you are not in the AOA you really have no say. No say over what could possibly, for you, be the biggest change in your career at CX.

Stop bitchin and start contributing.

One ammendment to current AOA policy I would like to see, is for the negotations with the company to go something like this :

1. negotiate, negotiate, negotiate
2. reach the best deal possible,
3. put info out to membbership
4. take input back to company and tweek/re-negotiate
5. bring final deal to the members for voting

Now this might seem like splitting hairs as compared to current practice, but it is very important to have a look at the deal in full detail, and then put it back to the company when all the input has been recieved from the members. The reason being is that as savy and intelligent as our GC might be (no sarcasm these guys work extremely hard for us) they cannot always consider the pilot body as a whole. There is also a great wealth of intelligence out there that is then tapped to work the scenarios out as we are here. Albiet a rather public forum to do so. The other major advantage is that re-negotiating a deal does not always have to involve moving the company away from it's objectives. Sometimes the changes are of an organizational nature. So you would thereby remove the negative conotation of voting something down and be guarenteed the ability to tweek/re-negotiate the deal without the all important loss of face and worries about "what if we vote no" .

So help us out. Sign up. It is the only way to afford to increase the measures the AOA can take to protect what we can protect. The more representative of the pilot body the AOA is the more effective it can be. By sitting on the sidelines and complaining you are only bringing about the very scenarios that seem to upset you so much.

Soap box off

[cpdude]

Originally Posted by Five Green

One amendment to current AOA policy I would like to see is for the negotiations with the company to go something like this :

1. negotiate, negotiate, negotiate
2. reach the best deal possible,
3. put info out to membership
4. take input back to company and tweak/renegotiate
5. bring final deal to the members for voting

Aside from the echo here...

I think the AOA is doing exactly what you are suggesting. The only way to get input back to company and tweak/renegotiate is for the AOA members to vote it down.

Remember, the AOA was bad-mouthed for negotiating and sometimes turning down offers in secrecy. Now they negotiated what they believe is the best deal possible and it's up to the membership to accept or turn it down. I would much rather have this situation then the GC deciding on it's own to turn it down.

[Mach75]

Hey guys, based on the opinions and posts you've read on the AOA forums and from other AOA members - any speculation on which way the vote will go?

[Mr. Bloggs]

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 Airline Transport Pilot's Licence and the performance of the Officer.

At present, after 4 years SFO is automatic with RPIC. The above statement makes me very nervous. “Dependent” on HKATP and this is the big one “the performance of the Officer”. I can ensure you that CX will exploit this.

What is considered performance, arguing with a crew controller because you just got shafted or by another section of CX. It could be speaking at AOA meetings, which got a couple of pilots fired several years ago. This will be considered “performance” by the review board when it is time to upgrade.

We have “Performance” with JFO to F/O’s and the review board holds some back. Automatic progression within CX is not guaranteed. A score of 3 on a check will clearly be a reason not to upgrade if you were one to speak up.

Free thinking is not allowed at CX.

[Five Green]

Almost

I know the logic behind the current procedures regarding negotiations.

At the moment the GC does not put out all the info by way of a completed proposal so all discussion up to the final draft is done with incomlete information. Once the complete info is available we are then required to vote.

I am saying this is too late. There needs to be a step in between that allows review of the proposals in entirety and then back to the negotiatin table.

The reason this is not done currently is that the GC feels that they are getting the best from the company and that is all they can do. It is apparent from this proposal (DEFO) that it can be better if sent back for clarification, and possible inclusion of areas not thought of etc. In the case of the DEFO programme there may be areas in the transition period, and pay scales, that may not have been considerd during the negotiations. I am not saying the negotiators are slack, rather that they cannot percieve how policies and proposals will affect every member. If they did cover all the bases, great then the intermediate consultation time is only a double check. Or, it is posssible valuable insight might be gained prior to the pressure a vote brings. It defines the process. At the moment it is a big question mark as to whether there is any chance for renegotiating/tweaking or not. An agreement to have a consultation period after the completed policy/proposal is put to the members guarantees that there will be review. Saves the companies "Face" as they do not have to decide whether to negotiate or not. Any changes do not have to be feared by the company because they might fall under the heading re-organisation and clarification, for example, and thereby save time preventing another drawn out negotiation and subsequent vote. Then, when the company says that is it, we won't change XYZ, now vote, that vote will be done based on a more finite set of possibilities. As it is now we are just guessing.

In the flying game we rely on checks and balances on redundancy, why not in our negotiation process as well. Hey it is only our careers we are talkiing about.

Cheers

Five

[baseddude]

Dear Commawnder Five Green:

Please understand that my motivation for jumping on the thread was to understand Cos 07, and its implications for a newbie freight dog.

And thanks to you and others on the thread, I understand the ramifications MUCH better than when I entered.

The bottom line for me is that given the choice, I'll stick with the old Cos.

Regarding your and BScaler's encouragement to get involved in AOA, I've "been there, and done that" with another pilot union - for years. I'm not going back there.

One of the most unsettling memories of my son's early years came from his kindergarten. His teacher gave each child the opportunity to talk about their parents' professions. When my son's turn came, she asked, "and what does your daddy do for work?" My son replied, "My daddy talks on the phone." His teacher replied, "No, your dad's an airline pilot. He flies airplanes." My son responded, "No, he just spends all day talking on the phone."

My family paid a very high price for my involvement in union work. And that will never happen again.

And as I look back upon the literally thousands of hours I spent "helping my fellow pilots", I realize that none of it amounted to a hill of beans.

The other realization that finally dawned on me after many years is that pilots are very self-interested people. They look at virtually every aspect of their industrial lives through one perspective: that perspective? "How does this affect ME?"

Call me jaded, or call me selfish. But after years of carrying the water for other pilots, worrying about THEIR jobs, THEIR pay, THEIR benefits, THEIR grievances, THEIR discipline problems, I decided finally to look after myself, my interests, and the interests of my family - just like every other pilot.

I respect union volunteers who do the work for righteous reasons. And I didn't mean to denigrate AOA volunteers. But the facts of CX industrial relations can not be ignored: The AOA has no leverage, no collective will, and no legal basis for fully representing its membership. One need look no further than CX's unilateral ability to terminate pilots without consequence to realize this.

And if one prefers not to examine the ugly affairs of termination, perhaps one could look to CX training failure rates - particularly for Commawnd positions. I don't have the data, but I have a sneaking suspicion that these failure rates are the highest in the industry worldwide! From all appearances, the AOA has no ability to change this horrific (and costly) fact.

I'm confident these problems stem from Hong Kong labor (sorry, I just can't bring myself to spell it l-a-b-o-u-r) law (or the lack thereof), management's union-busting with the 49ers, and other factors that I haven't even thought of. But you have to admit that it is all a bit unsetlling.

In any event, I truly do appreciate all of the ppruners' hand-holding through my journey of understanding of Cos 07.

baseddude

[Five Green]

Worn Out

Based:

I too worked for a former airline's union. Went through industrial action and the resultant heavy handed tactics from the company. Guess what we were legally allowed to form a Union and there are better labor laws in N. America , no question. It dod not help. In fact the outcome was far worse than the 49errs here.

The reality is that in all airlines save the flag carriers of the US and UK you are subject to company intimidation and quasi-legal industrial pressure. No different than here. Some say you get better protection elsewhere. I think that is only marginally true. having been through such legal avenues in N. America I can tell you that is not the case. Perhaps it is better in the UK and Australia dunno. Either way it makes sense to work with the AOA and do what we can.

Now thaat you understand your enviroment do you throw up your hands and give up ? Hopefully, No. Even in this enviroment you have a chance to keep the company talking. To have input into proposals and policy. These may seem trivial to some but to me they are the difference between an acceptable job and perhaps down the road an unacceptable one. Now Cathay is actually a very good job compared to the rest of the industry. Not the best, but pretty good. So we need to keep it that way. The AOA is the only thing looking out for you.

I can understand your industrial fatigue. All we are asking is that you sign up and support the AOA by membership alone. Join the forum discussions on the AOA site and attend a meeting or two. With your subs we can challange the company in court, research areas of our proffesion as new changes occur, over the pole flying and radiation as an example.

Membership in the AOA does not put you in the bad books with the company. On the contrary there are more non members that are likely to vote pro-company than there are AOA members. So it would actually behove the company if all of them were in the AOA.

If you are already in congrats, if not please consider it and use this vote to express your opinion either way. Using the past to justify not supporting our own futures is very weak. The AOA is not perfect. It needs to learn from people like you with valuable experience. It is still a very young entity, as associations go, and has made and will continue to make mistakes. They get alot right though. As with anything, you get out of it what you put in.

Cheers

[Harbour Dweller]

Hey guys, based on the opinions and posts you've read on the AOA forums and from other AOA members - any speculation on which way the vote will go?

Out of speaking to about 40-50 guys so far ALL have said they will vote NO.

The biggest concerns being;

1. CoS07 is a bad deal for current & future pilots,
2. What benefits do current pilots get from voting yes?
3. Why not discuss increases in Salary, RP04 and CoS07 as one and have some bargaining power?

[18Flyer]

Dear BasedDude,

Are your calculations based on upgrades at year 3 or year 5 based on getting a freighter command on $155k/yr for year one captain?

My understanding is that freighter commands will still be on the freighter pay scale (ie year one captain pay = $123996USD).

The new CoS07 combined payscale is for pax captains who can also fly the freighter.

[Mach75]

Well, that's good to hear. That seems to be the general opinion - at least on this forum anyway. My big fear is that it will be voted down, but the company will decide to go ahead and proceed with it anyway. Would there be any implications for the company if they were to do so?

[The Management]

Baseddude, thank you very much for your encouragement. We at Management can and will do whatever we can to enhance our bonus. If that is at the expense of our employees (whatever group that may be), it is a small price to pay for our benefit.

I know you have problems in the US with unions but in Asia, The Management rule. Pilots of Cathay Pacific are self-thinkers and do not nor will not see the big picture of what we do in Management. If some do and speak out, we punish. This will show the rest of the pilots what we are capable of and don't speak out. Rule by fear.

I dare say we have done a very good job over the last 15 years to divide the pilots and at the same time lower their conditions of service. My bonus speaks for itself.

These agreements will go through. We have changed the AOA voting rules to ensure this. If it does not pass, it will be only by a small percentage so we will know the pilot group is still divided and we will ask the AOA to have a revote to push it through.

With the pilot group still divided and if we decide to re-negotiate there will be very little we will change because we have satisfied most of the voting AOA members.

Freighter Pilots, do you really think the Cathay Pacific Mainline pilots really care about your well being? If they did, you would be flying both passenger and freighter aircraft on much better pay. New Freighter agreements in 1996 didn’t affect them, so they let it go through. Again in 1996, we used those same pilots to train THEIR replacements (ASL), so do you really think things have changed. Smart Freighter and Based pilots see this.

Our Freighter Business is over 30% of our revenue and we have you working for peanuts. Please don’t blame us, it is your mainline pilots for doing nothing about it, they are the ones you should blame.

That “rubber dog-****” comment in Top Gun has everybody running to us.

Your AOA mainline pilots gave us the right to fly wide body AHK Freighters to be employed by even lower conditions. We at Management adore this AOA, so please stop your bashing of this fine establishment.

The Freighter pilots should sign this deal, as it is more money in your pocket now, not later. You have to do what is right for your family, now, and not the promise of some mainline pilots going to negotiate you a better pay scale when you turn this down. Think about it and look at the history of mainline pilots. It speaks for itself. Freighter pilots and based pilots will be much better with these agreements, so you may as well sing, sorry sign.

If every pilot joined your AOA, it will not be much difference. In the spring of 2001 the AOA had a good membership percentage of overall pilots. They actually voted over 90% in favor of industrial action. After we fired the 49ers, they scattered like the rats they are. You or the AOA have no power, so you may as well take what we are offering.

For those who asked friends on how they vote, remember, Cathay Pacific pilots say one thing and do another. Watch this space.

Some mentioned a Professional Negotiator. We do not negotiate with “Terrorists”. Enough discussion on this matter.

The Management

[Five Green]

DEFO CoS

Originally Posted by 18Flyer

The new CoS07 combined payscale is for pax captains who can also fly the freighter.

Other than the USAB Captains (who will take a $30 000 US hit per year), the Captains pay remains relatively or exactly the same as it is now. However I presume once you agree to, as a first officer, you will be required to fly the freighter although that is not specifically spelled out as the document only covers the DEFO case. I think that as any COS 07 Captains will be a few years away. Assuming that a few senior FOs are forced onto CoS 07 to get a base, we might see one or two CoS 07 Captains in two or three years. The roster will probably stay as is for the next few years. That being that a few mainline FOs outside of training do fly freighter trips but they are the exception to the rule. Where as the DEFOs who are granted a base not designated "freighter only" will be rostered both (read crap schedule!)


Cheers

[BScaler]

Five Green

There is a rostering element to the introduction of CoS 07, should it be introduced, as you point out.

The ability of the company to roster CoS 07 pilots on both the freighter and the passenger fleets may introduce more disruption to a pilots schedule, (just talk to the current freighter guys and ask them when they plan to get home off their current pattern...).

We have not even been presented with any sample 'integrated' based rosters for perusal, although you can be sure the Company will have been working on it in order to evaluate 'increases in efficiency' in this area.

In agreeing to allow the company to present CoS 07 to New Joiners, we would be agreeing to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for greater increases in efficiency.

[BScaler]

Mach75

I have replied to your post regarding Bypass pay on this thread intead of the other DEFO thread since what you refer to can easily be referenced to the first post I made here.

1. A FO who is currently serving with the Company, who wishes to take up a base, will retain his current CoS.

However, an ineligible freighter FO, (an FO outside six months of being eligible to bid for a passenger position, as they can under present CoS), wishing to transfer to another base, can still do so but under CoS 07 terms and conditions.

For current Officers, read: no change.
For ineligible freighter FOs, read: possible slight improvement on their current pay, but reduced CoS.
For New Joiners read: joining the Company on lesser CoS for doing the same job as current Officers on the passenger fleet.

I contend that the current freighter CoS is below market, and such Officers should get an increase in pay and CoS anyway. If they are to fly both passenger and freighter aircraft as the Company proposes, then they should be paid at least current pasenger fleet pay, and availed at least current passenger fleet CoS.

CoS 07 falls well short of what is fair and it would be remiss of us as an aircrew body to vote to allow the Company to introduce CoS 07 for New Joiners.

2. Bypass Pay is payment that the Company pays an Officer for promoting someone over the top of them.

There is no period, under current CoS, before an Officer is eligible for Bypass Pay, However, in order to be considered eligible for Bypass Pay, a SO has to be assessed as 'suitable for upgrade to FO'. To reduce the amount of Bypass pay disbursed, the Company could simply assess SO's just before their upgrade course. (A loophole for avoidance of payment of Bypass Pay)

Under CoS 07, an Officer must wait 42 months before being eligible for Bypass Pay, but then it is paid out regardless of whether an Officer is assessed or not.

The argument as to which arrangement is better depends on your point of view, however, I would say that the 42 month eligibility provision is a degradation in current CoS, which has no such stipulation.

The Company currently has the ability to use administrative means to limit Bypass Pay disbursement, but the scheduling of assessments in this way must be a burden on the system. As a result the Company would like to get rid of the current provision as it stands.

I see what the Company is trying to do here as part of a long-term strategy to dilute Bypass Pay with the eventual goal of removing it completely. We simply should not agree to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners for doing the same job we currently do.

[Mach75]

Another significant degradation to the current CoS has just occured to me:

With the new proposed salaries being significantly lower (almost 30% lower in some cases) this equates to a significantly lower contribution to your provident fund. This is a pretty sneaky move - not only does the company save money by imposing a reduction in pay from what is currently offered but what many people probably overlook is that, as a result, new joiners will also be subject to a reduction in their pension.

[BScaler]

Mach 75

I believe the AOA GC has an obligation to explain every section of this agreement to the membership fully, including the more subtle implications as the one you just mention.

It took me some time to realise that the Hong Kong CoS 07 pay scales have been altered in subtle way that represents a degradation to current Hong Kong pay scales.

1. There are 12 FO pay steps under current CoS, but only 10 FO pay steps under CoS 07. The top two steps have been removed.

This has implications for Officers who do not make their Command, or suffer the effects of an industry downturn leading to an increased time as FO. These Officers would miss out on two pay steps compared to current CoS.

But what follows is an even more subtle change. I will make it as clear as possible, but you may have to read this over a couple of times to grasp the concept...

2. Currently Officers who are upgrading to FO, usually spend about nine months as JFO1 (=CoS 07 FO1) before completing their 'QL' line check and becoming a full FO (=CoS 07 FO3). Currently there is quite a pay jump once an Officer completes his QL, as the JFO2 pay step is skipped.

Under CoS 07, Officers who upgrade to FO move to FO1 pay (=current JFO1). There is no pay jump once an Officer completes his 'QL' line check. He simply continues up the pay scale and must pass through each step.

It will take a CoS 07 SO upgrading to FO 2 years to get to the same pay that a current SO upgrading to FO typically takes 9 months. This would rob New Joiner Officers of even more pay.

This is yet another degradation to current CoS. I cannot vote to allow the Company to present this to New Joiners under CoS 07.