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
I believe the members of the AOA will vote on ratifying this agreement on 9th October. Online voting will, of course, be open prior to that date, but I am not sure when online voting will commence.
I am hoping that this agreement will be voted down by as comprehensive a margin as possible.
I am hoping that this agreement will be voted down by as comprehensive a margin as possible.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, right you are. Voting is for the AGM and the RP07. Getting confused with the bombardment of info recently....maybe thats the strategy...to overwhelm us into missing something and voting yes!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach 75
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.
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.
Not once did the company say to the membership that HK was gonna take a pay cut. But sure enough, there it is. Unless you read and compared the pay scales and scrutinized the agreement, you would have missed it. Not to mention the fact that they also put a provision in that allows them to hire right to HK. That would put someone on COS7 at higher pay than a COS99 based FO (including all the expat package).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just talked with a member of the AOA GC and checked the AOA website, I believe that voting for the AGM and RP 07 is now open online.
Voting for CoS 07 will not commence for some time and they are as yet unsure when voting will open online, but it will not be until a further newsletter on the subject has been issued.
It does sound a little like stalling to me.
Just a reminder that under the new voting rules, 51% 'against' will sink the motion. I am hoping for a comprehensive vote 'against' allowing the Company to offer lesser CoS for New Joiners.
Voting for CoS 07 will not commence for some time and they are as yet unsure when voting will open online, but it will not be until a further newsletter on the subject has been issued.
It does sound a little like stalling to me.
Just a reminder that under the new voting rules, 51% 'against' will sink the motion. I am hoping for a comprehensive vote 'against' allowing the Company to offer lesser CoS for New Joiners.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to knock back the DEFO/COS 07, you may as well knock back the rostering agreement. I am sure there are issues in there that can be improved.
Like haggling in Beijing, never take what they first offer, unless you are an idiot.
Negotiating 101, but seems many CX pilots were absent for that class.
Like haggling in Beijing, never take what they first offer, unless you are an idiot.
Negotiating 101, but seems many CX pilots were absent for that class.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OneDegSouth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for repeating the obvious......But.....
I have just read that SAA have received a large pay increase (20%)
Also read that UPS received a large pay increase (20%)
And Cathay wants to degrade our COS...what a load of bollocks!!
I have voted NO to RP07 and will do so for DEFO and Age 60.
Most guys i have flown with have indicated they will do the same so i really hope this gets voted down by a large margin!!!
Hopefully that will send some shockwaves thru the management pond and bring some realistic negotiation aimed at BETTER Cos and pay NOT worse!!!
I have just read that SAA have received a large pay increase (20%)
Also read that UPS received a large pay increase (20%)
And Cathay wants to degrade our COS...what a load of bollocks!!
I have voted NO to RP07 and will do so for DEFO and Age 60.
Most guys i have flown with have indicated they will do the same so i really hope this gets voted down by a large margin!!!
Hopefully that will send some shockwaves thru the management pond and bring some realistic negotiation aimed at BETTER Cos and pay NOT worse!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOA GC assert that if the Company simply brought in CoS 07 unilaterally, they would be unable to represent New Joiners as they are not yet employed by the Company nor are they current AOA members.
Yet we are being asked to represent these same people by voting to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for them - our future colleagues and AOA members!
In my view, bearing in mind that the Company have employed New Joiners since 1999 on our current CoS, (CoS that include the provision for the employment of DEFOs), the Company cannot arbitrarily introduce new CoS simply because they do not wish to employ future Officers under the terms of our present contract.
I would ask whether life has got any better for A-Scalers since the introduction of B-Scales. Clearly they have not. It follows that life would not get any better for us if we were to allow the introduction of CoS 07 - in effect C-Scales.
We should not vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.
Yet we are being asked to represent these same people by voting to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for them - our future colleagues and AOA members!
In my view, bearing in mind that the Company have employed New Joiners since 1999 on our current CoS, (CoS that include the provision for the employment of DEFOs), the Company cannot arbitrarily introduce new CoS simply because they do not wish to employ future Officers under the terms of our present contract.
I would ask whether life has got any better for A-Scalers since the introduction of B-Scales. Clearly they have not. It follows that life would not get any better for us if we were to allow the introduction of CoS 07 - in effect C-Scales.
We should not vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOA Newsletter
The AOA has just brought out a newsletter detailing some of the rationale behind it coming to agreement on the DEFO/CoS 07 issue.
This is a reply to that newsletter and should be read in that context, but it is fairly self-explanatory.
It's a long one...
Initial Company Plans
The list of improvements that the AOA President asserts were made to initial Company plans for expansion, must simply be seen in the light of an initial negotiating position. The AOA start point could equally have been an improvement on our current set of CoS – CoS which have remained untouched for seven years. The ‘improvements’ stated are moot points – we can only consider what the agreement presents us and our future colleagues with as it stands before us.
Should We Be Endorsing Yet Another CoS?
The ideal of a single CoS on the best terms possible may be a challenging goal, but it will only become more elusive if we agree to yet another set of CoS in the manner now suggested. Surely the onus rests with the Company in this time of expansion, in coming to us with a carrot, rather than the stick that CoS 07 represents.
Company’s Ability to Recruit DEFOs on CoS 99
In his newsletter, with regard to the current recruitment streams, the AOA President states:
‘As the established entry route of the last decade is successfully attracting the necessary calibre of pilot then it is reasonable to compare fortunes and opportunities for new joiners under CoS 07 against the benchmark of SO or FO(F) entry points under CoS 99.’
It is fair to say that this assumption forms the basis of my disagreement with what the AOA is presenting to the membership. I hold a different view.
The Company is about to undergo a significant and unprecedented expansion, for which it needs a different type of pilot applicant than has been applying for the SO and FO(F) thus far. With a DEFO(P) entry stream, I contend that the Company would like to see type-rated and experienced pilots enter the Company to assist with a smooth rapid expansion. This is not about the calibre of the pilot per se, so much as the relevant experience that he can bring to the airline, thus reducing training costs and facilitating more rapid expansion. These type-rated and qualified pilots would not be currently applying for a SO or FO(F) position, as these positions would not represent career progression from where they currently stand.
I therefore do not believe it is valid to make the comparison between CoS 07 New Joiners and current SO and FO(F) entry points under CoS 99. In this context, the relative charts laid out in the AOA ‘DEFO – Analysis and Perspectives’Newsletter are meaningless.
My perspective is simple. The Company wish to employ DEFO(P) pilots but not pay them current pay, despite the experience they would bring to the Company to help facilitate expansion. I will not vote to allow the Company to do this. And even if I were completely wrong about the particular attributes of pilot the Company is targeting for recruitment, it would still be wrong to vote to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for pilots carrying the same responsibilities in the same rank as we do at present.
The Company has brought the case for DEFO(P)s. They want them. Their introduction will save the Company considerably in training costs and efficiencies. Whilst it is also preferable for the pilot community to have this elevated recruitment stream, I do not believe it is in our best interests to reduce CoS and pay for New Joiners, as the price for its introduction.
Our present CoS have been applied for the last seven years to New Joiner recruits. They allow for DEFO(P) and I believe we are within our rights to expect the Company to recruit DEFO(P) New Joiners under these terms if a suitable alternate agreement cannot be reached.
I do not think the Company would have gone to such lengths to negotiate an agreement if they felt they could arbitrarily introduce a new set of CoS for New Joiners by right, as the AOA GC infers may happen if this agreement is not ratified.
Pay - Is This a C-Scale?
I contend that, quite clearly, CoS 07 is a C-Scale. There is no point on the CoS 07 salary scale that exceeds our current pay scales for doing the same job. They are equal to or degraded from what we currently enjoy. With the possible exception of Freighter FOs, who I contend are below market rates anyway, CoS 07 pay scales would not be attractive to any pilot currently employed. And their structure hides further subtle degradations.
The Hong Kong CoS 07 pay scales, for example, have been altered in subtle way that represents a degradation to current Hong Kong pay scales.
I do not think we as an Association would have much chance in achieving a pay rise, if we intimated to the Company that we had ‘made a mistake’ in say determining the UK base salaries in the past and needed them adjusted upwards accordingly. Likewise, agreeing to a very large salary cut for New Joiners in a specific base area at a time when the Company is not in extremis by any stretch of the imagination, and the base area in question is experiencing a commercial aviation renaissance, seems inappropriate.
Leave
New Joiners under CoS 07 will be denied current leave entitlements. And once again, in a similar vein to the pay structure, the degradation is subtly worse than at first glance.
In plain terms, a CoS 07 New Joiner stands to lose approximately four weeks leave over four years compared to a current New Joiner. The increased annual G-Day entitlement for lesser leave does not mitigate this in any way. G-Days are G-Days and leave is leave.
Bypass Pay
I believe that the Company is embarking upon a long-term strategy to dilute the present Bypass Pay system with a view to reducing its effects in time. We should be vigilant for any attempts to reduce our present entitlement. The Bypass Pay provision in our CoS is the only reason the Company is engaging us on talks regarding employment beyond age 55. The CoS 07 Bypass Pay provisions should be seen in this light.
Both systems have their flaws, but I contend that living with the present system would be preferable to agreeing to a flat 42 month ineligibility period for future New Joiners.
Conclusion
I can see several areas in this agreement where talks would surely have broken down between AOA negotiators and the Company, as the AOA President asserts occurred on a number of occasions. The AOA’s decision to remain engaged and return to the table after each breakdown, has in my view, resulted in a poor agreement that does not, despite the great effort involved, deserve ratification.
The Company cannot, as the President suggests, unilaterally develop and implement its own solution for growth. It requires the cooperation and collaboration of its employees. We have a set of Conditions of Service that have been in operation since 1999 and their standing has been tested in court. I cannot see how the Company can justify a decrease in CoS at a time of rapid expansion, when our cooperation and collaboration are required, and I cannot agree to vote to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners.
The growth of the Company does stand to benefit current and future Officers alike, but I cannot take that glib assessment and simply run with CoS 07 on that basis. Should this agreement be ratified, CoS 07 will be with us, growth or no growth. These talks were not about growth. These talks were about allowing the Company to make more money and attain greater productivity by changing Conditions of Service for future employees. Growth or no growth.
The case is sometimes put that we cannot represent Officers who have not yet joined the Company. Yet here we are being asked to approve lesser Conditions of Service for these very same Officers – our future colleagues who as yet have no voice of their own.
Personally I believe that we as an Association should embrace the challenging goal of working toward the ideal of a single CoS on the best terms possible rather than endorsing further fragmentation.
I cannot vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.
This is a reply to that newsletter and should be read in that context, but it is fairly self-explanatory.
It's a long one...
Initial Company Plans
The list of improvements that the AOA President asserts were made to initial Company plans for expansion, must simply be seen in the light of an initial negotiating position. The AOA start point could equally have been an improvement on our current set of CoS – CoS which have remained untouched for seven years. The ‘improvements’ stated are moot points – we can only consider what the agreement presents us and our future colleagues with as it stands before us.
Should We Be Endorsing Yet Another CoS?
The ideal of a single CoS on the best terms possible may be a challenging goal, but it will only become more elusive if we agree to yet another set of CoS in the manner now suggested. Surely the onus rests with the Company in this time of expansion, in coming to us with a carrot, rather than the stick that CoS 07 represents.
Company’s Ability to Recruit DEFOs on CoS 99
In his newsletter, with regard to the current recruitment streams, the AOA President states:
‘As the established entry route of the last decade is successfully attracting the necessary calibre of pilot then it is reasonable to compare fortunes and opportunities for new joiners under CoS 07 against the benchmark of SO or FO(F) entry points under CoS 99.’
It is fair to say that this assumption forms the basis of my disagreement with what the AOA is presenting to the membership. I hold a different view.
The Company is about to undergo a significant and unprecedented expansion, for which it needs a different type of pilot applicant than has been applying for the SO and FO(F) thus far. With a DEFO(P) entry stream, I contend that the Company would like to see type-rated and experienced pilots enter the Company to assist with a smooth rapid expansion. This is not about the calibre of the pilot per se, so much as the relevant experience that he can bring to the airline, thus reducing training costs and facilitating more rapid expansion. These type-rated and qualified pilots would not be currently applying for a SO or FO(F) position, as these positions would not represent career progression from where they currently stand.
I therefore do not believe it is valid to make the comparison between CoS 07 New Joiners and current SO and FO(F) entry points under CoS 99. In this context, the relative charts laid out in the AOA ‘DEFO – Analysis and Perspectives’Newsletter are meaningless.
My perspective is simple. The Company wish to employ DEFO(P) pilots but not pay them current pay, despite the experience they would bring to the Company to help facilitate expansion. I will not vote to allow the Company to do this. And even if I were completely wrong about the particular attributes of pilot the Company is targeting for recruitment, it would still be wrong to vote to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for pilots carrying the same responsibilities in the same rank as we do at present.
The Company has brought the case for DEFO(P)s. They want them. Their introduction will save the Company considerably in training costs and efficiencies. Whilst it is also preferable for the pilot community to have this elevated recruitment stream, I do not believe it is in our best interests to reduce CoS and pay for New Joiners, as the price for its introduction.
Our present CoS have been applied for the last seven years to New Joiner recruits. They allow for DEFO(P) and I believe we are within our rights to expect the Company to recruit DEFO(P) New Joiners under these terms if a suitable alternate agreement cannot be reached.
I do not think the Company would have gone to such lengths to negotiate an agreement if they felt they could arbitrarily introduce a new set of CoS for New Joiners by right, as the AOA GC infers may happen if this agreement is not ratified.
Pay - Is This a C-Scale?
I contend that, quite clearly, CoS 07 is a C-Scale. There is no point on the CoS 07 salary scale that exceeds our current pay scales for doing the same job. They are equal to or degraded from what we currently enjoy. With the possible exception of Freighter FOs, who I contend are below market rates anyway, CoS 07 pay scales would not be attractive to any pilot currently employed. And their structure hides further subtle degradations.
The Hong Kong CoS 07 pay scales, for example, have been altered in subtle way that represents a degradation to current Hong Kong pay scales.
- 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.
- Currently, Officers who are upgrading to FO, usually spend about nine to twelve months as JFO1 before completing their 'QL' line check and becoming a full FO. Currently there is quite a pay jump once an Officer completes his QL, as the JFO2 pay step is usually skipped upon normal progression.
UnderCoS 07, Officers who upgrade to FO move to FO1 pay (equal to 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 therefore 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 9-12 months. This is a significant degradation for an entry stream that was previously portrayed as being little affected by CoS 07.
- In the AOA ‘DEFO – Analysis and Perspectives’Newsletter, the justification for agreeing to cuts in USAB salary is complex and difficult to follow. From what I can see, it amounts to the Company ‘making a mistake’ in awarding the salary scale in the first place. In any case, the original salary scales were constructed along the same lines as other base areas. While 9/11 did have a marked effect on the airline industry in the US, there is clear evidence that the industry is picking up at present, with significant pay rises for pilots.
I do not think we as an Association would have much chance in achieving a pay rise, if we intimated to the Company that we had ‘made a mistake’ in say determining the UK base salaries in the past and needed them adjusted upwards accordingly. Likewise, agreeing to a very large salary cut for New Joiners in a specific base area at a time when the Company is not in extremis by any stretch of the imagination, and the base area in question is experiencing a commercial aviation renaissance, seems inappropriate.
Leave
New Joiners under CoS 07 will be denied current leave entitlements. And once again, in a similar vein to the pay structure, the degradation is subtly worse than at first glance.
- Currently, Officers who are upgrading to FO, usually spend about nine to twelve months as JFO1 before completing their 'QL' line check and becoming a full FO. There is a change in leave entitlement once an Officer completes his QL. In effect, upon normal progression, an Officer spends only nine to twelve months with an annual entitlement of four weeks before progressing to a six week entitlement.
In plain terms, a CoS 07 New Joiner stands to lose approximately four weeks leave over four years compared to a current New Joiner. The increased annual G-Day entitlement for lesser leave does not mitigate this in any way. G-Days are G-Days and leave is leave.
Bypass Pay
I believe that the Company is embarking upon a long-term strategy to dilute the present Bypass Pay system with a view to reducing its effects in time. We should be vigilant for any attempts to reduce our present entitlement. The Bypass Pay provision in our CoS is the only reason the Company is engaging us on talks regarding employment beyond age 55. The CoS 07 Bypass Pay provisions should be seen in this light.
- The Bypass Pay arrangement for SOs under CoS 07 mandates a 42 month period before an Officer becomes eligible for Bypass Pay. This dilutes the intent of the Bypass Pay system, so that it may be possible for Officers to be bypassed without penalty to the Company.
Both systems have their flaws, but I contend that living with the present system would be preferable to agreeing to a flat 42 month ineligibility period for future New Joiners.
Conclusion
I can see several areas in this agreement where talks would surely have broken down between AOA negotiators and the Company, as the AOA President asserts occurred on a number of occasions. The AOA’s decision to remain engaged and return to the table after each breakdown, has in my view, resulted in a poor agreement that does not, despite the great effort involved, deserve ratification.
The Company cannot, as the President suggests, unilaterally develop and implement its own solution for growth. It requires the cooperation and collaboration of its employees. We have a set of Conditions of Service that have been in operation since 1999 and their standing has been tested in court. I cannot see how the Company can justify a decrease in CoS at a time of rapid expansion, when our cooperation and collaboration are required, and I cannot agree to vote to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners.
The growth of the Company does stand to benefit current and future Officers alike, but I cannot take that glib assessment and simply run with CoS 07 on that basis. Should this agreement be ratified, CoS 07 will be with us, growth or no growth. These talks were not about growth. These talks were about allowing the Company to make more money and attain greater productivity by changing Conditions of Service for future employees. Growth or no growth.
The case is sometimes put that we cannot represent Officers who have not yet joined the Company. Yet here we are being asked to approve lesser Conditions of Service for these very same Officers – our future colleagues who as yet have no voice of their own.
Personally I believe that we as an Association should embrace the challenging goal of working toward the ideal of a single CoS on the best terms possible rather than endorsing further fragmentation.
I cannot vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Scaler. Your analysis is superb. One is left with no doubt that this proposal deserves an overwhelming NO vote. Furthermore, the company has recently proved that there is NO benefit in 'working' with them on 'advancing' the company's interests, as the insulting and unjustified non-payment of any meaningful profit sharing demonstrates that we will NOT share in the company's success. It is unbelievable that the management expects us to blindly agree to this ridiculous proposal, when they have been taking us for granted these past few years. As you so ably explained, nearly every facet of COS 07 is flawed, in particular the rational regarding the USAB scales (the US airline pay scales suffered cuts only AFTER seeing double digit percentange increases between 1999 and 2004). Needless to say, USAB saw NO pay rises during this same period. Arguably, USAB is no further ahead or behind the datum point established in 1999 when the COMPANY unilateraly set the USAB scales. It is also worth reminding everyone that prior to 1994, ALL officers had 8 weeks of leave, and prior to the early 80's, every pilot enjoyed 'long-service' leave , 6 months (yes...months!) off WITH pay every 10 years!. Needless to say, there is NOTHING to recommend COS 07, and it is high time that the company made serious IMPROVEMENTS to ALL payscale and benefit packages. I am sick(
) and tired of this management always expecting to TAKE from us. During a time of rapid expansion, the expectation is always that the pilots are rewarded for co-operating with the needs of the expansion. Somehow, CX management twist this into thinking that the pilots should 'sacrifice' to the benefit of the expansion. Are you people serious. If you haven't voted, vote NO. If you can't vote, join the AOA. Regardless of the issues of the past few years, it is blindingly obvious that your participation in the coming months is critical. A unified, representative voice is necessary to let CX know that you will NOT sacrifice your earnings, benefits and lifestyle for the sake of the next few rounds of management bonuses. JOIN, VOTE.
) and tired of this management always expecting to TAKE from us. During a time of rapid expansion, the expectation is always that the pilots are rewarded for co-operating with the needs of the expansion. Somehow, CX management twist this into thinking that the pilots should 'sacrifice' to the benefit of the expansion. Are you people serious. If you haven't voted, vote NO. If you can't vote, join the AOA. Regardless of the issues of the past few years, it is blindingly obvious that your participation in the coming months is critical. A unified, representative voice is necessary to let CX know that you will NOT sacrifice your earnings, benefits and lifestyle for the sake of the next few rounds of management bonuses. JOIN, VOTE.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be it coincidence or not (I suspect the latter) but the benchmark used by CX to negotiate/substantiate the CoS 07 salary versus US carriers was the 2005 US carrier salaries. This period could be characterised as the lowest point in the pendulum swing.
What actually motivated CX to even discuss a change to the CoS? They would have been better to pull back and re-think given the changes in global airline economics over the past 6-12 months.
It will be very interesting to see how CX plans to drive forward with its aggressive expansion plans while looking in the rear-ward mirror.
What actually motivated CX to even discuss a change to the CoS? They would have been better to pull back and re-think given the changes in global airline economics over the past 6-12 months.
It will be very interesting to see how CX plans to drive forward with its aggressive expansion plans while looking in the rear-ward mirror.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: hong kong
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This how the initial talks should have gone(but obviously didn't);
Phil;-"Lets talk about growth,Steve"
Steve;-"Ah,so you wish to talk about changes to CoS in conjucntion with pay increases.That's great news,Phil"
Phil;-"Just one step at a time,Steve.We don't want to get ahead of our selves now do we?We'll get to pay at a later date I promise but we need to sort CoS first.
Steve;-"But thats what you said after the 49er deal and the housing deal"
Phil;-"But this time I really mean it"
Steve;-"So no pay talks at this round then?"
Phil;-"Just think of it as a seamless lead in to pay talks.Remember,we are all on the same team."
Steve;-"Ok,bye.Regards to your family" "scrape(chair),clonk(door)"
Phil;-"Lets talk about growth,Steve"
Steve;-"Ah,so you wish to talk about changes to CoS in conjucntion with pay increases.That's great news,Phil"
Phil;-"Just one step at a time,Steve.We don't want to get ahead of our selves now do we?We'll get to pay at a later date I promise but we need to sort CoS first.
Steve;-"But thats what you said after the 49er deal and the housing deal"
Phil;-"But this time I really mean it"
Steve;-"So no pay talks at this round then?"
Phil;-"Just think of it as a seamless lead in to pay talks.Remember,we are all on the same team."
Steve;-"Ok,bye.Regards to your family" "scrape(chair),clonk(door)"
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B scaler, your reply is well thought out and I agree on all points. Now lets get a drive on to increase the member numbers and put this to the vote.... and show the negotiators and company alike that this proposal is not acceptable.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: a few places
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bscaler, Can it be summed up that you would like to see DEFO's starting on the same money as an F/O who is already on a base?
The DEFO starts in MEL he should be getting the same T&C's as his fellow CX F/O who is on the base?
Makes good sense, same job same pay.
The DEFO starts in MEL he should be getting the same T&C's as his fellow CX F/O who is on the base?
Makes good sense, same job same pay.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX has created a real pickle with this freighter only fleet.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA USA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately they(the management) are trying to solve that pickle and pass through a hose job at the same time, a bit ambitious!! Hopefully they will fail and then maybe a simple solution to the pickle will be hammered out!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The funny thing is if they just recruited the DEFO Pax into CoS99 FO1 pay and ammended the freighter FO pay to match the pax FO pay everything would probably be just fine. It would be easier and better received. Really, how much do they think they will save with this new CoS07? Somebody is not thinking.