DEFO/Conditions of Service 2007 Hot Oil
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear B scaler, I cannot agree with your thoughts on the fallback and I further believe that a significant (but not majority) number of the HKAOA membership has not fully understood the ramifications of the rejection of RP07 and the poor rosters which will most likely result if the fallback position is implemented. The rosters will be far more biased to what the company wants rather than what the pilot wants because simply put, we will have agreed to forfeit all of the lifestyle provisions in RP07 in exchange for one re-inclusion namely the 543 rule, which only benefits those undertaking exclusive ULR flights. The old reserve system to be implemented with the fallback is unlimited in the number of days that will be rostered and for example a 6 hour reserve period you will get only 1.25 hours credit if not called out.
Whilst RP 04/07 is far from perfect it does have the basis of a system that delivers considerable lifestyle and roster choices that a minority of the membership may have thoughtlessly jettisoned forever if the AOA leadership did not take the recent sensible approach it has . The situation is…. The President has delivered the letter terminating RP07/07 however he has asked, and the company has agreed to extend RP04 for a few months with a view to reviewing the contentious issues with the company.
There are certainly areas RP07 can be improved upon and leave credits is one of them. The company were just plain greedy by not agreeing to a credit value for leave which prevented work stacking. The correct value is in the order of 2.7 – 2.8 hours per day a figure that would give 42 hours work and 42 hours leave credits for a month in which half the month was leave, totalling 84 for the month.
My own experience with the new reserve system was that it was much better than previous year’s system and I only did 18 days each year of the trial. I was nearly 100% called out well in advance and never sat 12 hours of reserve with ULR callouts late in the duty. I know this was not universal and did not apply to 744 Captains who are well under the required manning levels and they do have a genuine reason to complain about the amount of reserve, regrettably the re introduction of the old system will not reduce the amount of reserve it will increase the number of days on reserve significantly due to the 4 hour FDP clock limiting the use of the pilot. The company are also greedy when cancelling a split duty and replacing it with 2 days of 12 hours reserve and I do not know of anyone who had a cancelled duty replaced with O days. They (CX) need to take some responsibility for the motion failing.
I fail to grasp the view of some…. that by rejecting RP 04/07 and enforcing the fallback with the 543 rule is going to hurt the company to such an extent and force them to negotiate a better deal because it will leave aeroplanes on the ground in the interim. RP01 is their imposed system and they lived with it for several years. Without all of the lifestyle requests, Jokers, W patterns, unlimited reserve and O days they will be easily able to schedule the task and our rosters will be poor to say the least. In fact the company may argue that it may be better placed to expand without the restrictions of lifestyle components of the rostering request system. There could however be mass discontentment throughout the pilot body for whatever impact that may have.
I am content that logical heads prevailed with both our AOA leadership and the company in extending RP04 for a short while.
This is my understanding of the process of the fallback following the failure of the RP04 vote or any renegotiated proposal.
From May 07 we will go back to an interim fallback position which is basically RP01 with a version (there were several) of 543 for pax fleet, the old “unlimited reserve” system with 3 man ULR with a reduction of 7% credit. The lifestyle inclusions of RP 04/07 may or may not be included as policy as the company sees fit, there is no agreement to do so.
Should the AOA decide to activate a court case and we had a total victory we could expect to return to RP94 a system which was unilaterally imposed by the company and a system the AOA has been attempting to dismantle for well over a decade. The fallback of RP01 will run for a maximum of 4 years with the only protection the AFTL’s thereafter, failing an agreement or win for the AOA in court.
RP01 was also imposed by the company and it lacks all of the lifestyle features incorporated into RP 04/07. None of the credit factors will be included in our COS. At the end of 4 years the credit values could be unilaterally changed adversely. RP07 was going to have all the credit values in the COS.
The 3 man ULR factor will reduce from 1.14 to 1.07 adding a 7% workload increase to those on an AKL base and those undertaking those duties.
There will be no credit if you change your positioning duty.
There is no agreement/requirement to roster A days a feature that many crew on a base voluntarily choose to do.
There is no agreement to have JRC involvement in rostering issues. In fact there will be no need to monitor anything because there is nothing to monitor, only a set of previously imposed credit values and 543 for those on ULR pax fleets.
There is no requirement to give 6 jokers per year. At best it would be “Policy” a very distant second fiddle to manning the task.
There is no provision for lifestyle rostering i.e. W patterns for those who choose them and if the company did elect to allow them there is no agreement to limit them if they are adversely affecting other rosters by taking all of the ULR flights for those on W patterns.
There are no protections (even the wishy washy ones in RP04) to prevent work stacking under the fallback agreement.
There is no requirement to give any seniority or any other consideration to flight/days off requests; it will be at total company convenience, if at all.
There are no limits on the number or placement of O days in the roster; likewise there are no limits on the placement or amount of reserve days in a roster. Expect more of both due to the reintroduction of 543 and just because “they can do it”.
The minimum G day count will reduce by 10, and this is probably what you would get after the roster is filled with reserve and O days. Most of us will have 92 G days and 42 leave days and that will be it.
Regards
Cyril
Whilst RP 04/07 is far from perfect it does have the basis of a system that delivers considerable lifestyle and roster choices that a minority of the membership may have thoughtlessly jettisoned forever if the AOA leadership did not take the recent sensible approach it has . The situation is…. The President has delivered the letter terminating RP07/07 however he has asked, and the company has agreed to extend RP04 for a few months with a view to reviewing the contentious issues with the company.
There are certainly areas RP07 can be improved upon and leave credits is one of them. The company were just plain greedy by not agreeing to a credit value for leave which prevented work stacking. The correct value is in the order of 2.7 – 2.8 hours per day a figure that would give 42 hours work and 42 hours leave credits for a month in which half the month was leave, totalling 84 for the month.
My own experience with the new reserve system was that it was much better than previous year’s system and I only did 18 days each year of the trial. I was nearly 100% called out well in advance and never sat 12 hours of reserve with ULR callouts late in the duty. I know this was not universal and did not apply to 744 Captains who are well under the required manning levels and they do have a genuine reason to complain about the amount of reserve, regrettably the re introduction of the old system will not reduce the amount of reserve it will increase the number of days on reserve significantly due to the 4 hour FDP clock limiting the use of the pilot. The company are also greedy when cancelling a split duty and replacing it with 2 days of 12 hours reserve and I do not know of anyone who had a cancelled duty replaced with O days. They (CX) need to take some responsibility for the motion failing.
I fail to grasp the view of some…. that by rejecting RP 04/07 and enforcing the fallback with the 543 rule is going to hurt the company to such an extent and force them to negotiate a better deal because it will leave aeroplanes on the ground in the interim. RP01 is their imposed system and they lived with it for several years. Without all of the lifestyle requests, Jokers, W patterns, unlimited reserve and O days they will be easily able to schedule the task and our rosters will be poor to say the least. In fact the company may argue that it may be better placed to expand without the restrictions of lifestyle components of the rostering request system. There could however be mass discontentment throughout the pilot body for whatever impact that may have.
I am content that logical heads prevailed with both our AOA leadership and the company in extending RP04 for a short while.
This is my understanding of the process of the fallback following the failure of the RP04 vote or any renegotiated proposal.
From May 07 we will go back to an interim fallback position which is basically RP01 with a version (there were several) of 543 for pax fleet, the old “unlimited reserve” system with 3 man ULR with a reduction of 7% credit. The lifestyle inclusions of RP 04/07 may or may not be included as policy as the company sees fit, there is no agreement to do so.
Should the AOA decide to activate a court case and we had a total victory we could expect to return to RP94 a system which was unilaterally imposed by the company and a system the AOA has been attempting to dismantle for well over a decade. The fallback of RP01 will run for a maximum of 4 years with the only protection the AFTL’s thereafter, failing an agreement or win for the AOA in court.
RP01 was also imposed by the company and it lacks all of the lifestyle features incorporated into RP 04/07. None of the credit factors will be included in our COS. At the end of 4 years the credit values could be unilaterally changed adversely. RP07 was going to have all the credit values in the COS.
The 3 man ULR factor will reduce from 1.14 to 1.07 adding a 7% workload increase to those on an AKL base and those undertaking those duties.
There will be no credit if you change your positioning duty.
There is no agreement/requirement to roster A days a feature that many crew on a base voluntarily choose to do.
There is no agreement to have JRC involvement in rostering issues. In fact there will be no need to monitor anything because there is nothing to monitor, only a set of previously imposed credit values and 543 for those on ULR pax fleets.
There is no requirement to give 6 jokers per year. At best it would be “Policy” a very distant second fiddle to manning the task.
There is no provision for lifestyle rostering i.e. W patterns for those who choose them and if the company did elect to allow them there is no agreement to limit them if they are adversely affecting other rosters by taking all of the ULR flights for those on W patterns.
There are no protections (even the wishy washy ones in RP04) to prevent work stacking under the fallback agreement.
There is no requirement to give any seniority or any other consideration to flight/days off requests; it will be at total company convenience, if at all.
There are no limits on the number or placement of O days in the roster; likewise there are no limits on the placement or amount of reserve days in a roster. Expect more of both due to the reintroduction of 543 and just because “they can do it”.
The minimum G day count will reduce by 10, and this is probably what you would get after the roster is filled with reserve and O days. Most of us will have 92 G days and 42 leave days and that will be it.
Regards
Cyril
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fallback agreement is not ideal, but I believe that it is a worse proposition for the Company than it is for the average pilot. Consequently, I believe that the Company would be more motivated to negotiate better Rostering Procedures if the spectre of the fallback agreement were hanging over proceedings.
1. What if you're wrong and it's not worse for the company? They did roster under RP01 for several years!
2. Even if it is worse for the company we have seen many examples where the company will take a hit just to show they will win regardless of what it costs them.
3. It takes a fair amount of work to switch over to another RP so what if the company gets pissed about having to do that and doesn't want to negotiate a new deal?
4. Why the rush? Why can't you and others wait 4 months and try to get a better deal? Why do you want RP01 SO BAD!
Cyril, Great Post Dude!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are all acting as though we have no choice. Don't forget that if CX chooses to make the COS uncompetetive. Than you can choose to look elsewhere for employment. I believe as pilots we have reached the end of our ropes when it come to a reduction in COS and pay. Stop underselling your skills. Do you think CEO's approach companies and say they will work for less$$? CX is a world class company that make a very good profit. It's time to share that $$ in better COS and more $$....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril,
First of all, let me say that I voted FOR RP07, (definitely NOT for CoS07 - let me make that clear). Personally, I agree completely with your rationale as to why RP07 is better than the fallback agreement. Well summarised.
But as FCUX put it, my issue is with the process. The membership did not vote to extend RP04. The President and GC took it upon themselves, precipitously and without mandate, to do so. They thus disregarded the consequences of the vote that had just taken place. Will they do the same when and if CoS07 is voted down?
The President and GC appear to insult the membership by assuming that some of those that voted did not fully understand the issues. If this were in fact the case, then they should share some of the blame for this. Having both RP07 and CoS07 considered by the membership coincidentally, after months of complex negotiations, was not ideal.
They should not be surprised by members objections to their actions, and though I personally would like RP07, or an improved version of it, I also respect the members right to vote as they choose. As should the President and GC.
cpdude, all your arguments were mulled over in the leadup to the vote on RP07. So the vote went the way it did. And now you trot out the same arguments justifying the subsequent actions of the President and GC when they didn't like the outcome. I have sat and watched votes not go the way I liked in the past on various issues, but I didn't continue to try to have my view imposed after the vote, and I didn't spit the dummy and leave the AOA either.
Rightly or wrongly, we vote, we accept the outcome, we go from there. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work?
First of all, let me say that I voted FOR RP07, (definitely NOT for CoS07 - let me make that clear). Personally, I agree completely with your rationale as to why RP07 is better than the fallback agreement. Well summarised.
But as FCUX put it, my issue is with the process. The membership did not vote to extend RP04. The President and GC took it upon themselves, precipitously and without mandate, to do so. They thus disregarded the consequences of the vote that had just taken place. Will they do the same when and if CoS07 is voted down?
The President and GC appear to insult the membership by assuming that some of those that voted did not fully understand the issues. If this were in fact the case, then they should share some of the blame for this. Having both RP07 and CoS07 considered by the membership coincidentally, after months of complex negotiations, was not ideal.
They should not be surprised by members objections to their actions, and though I personally would like RP07, or an improved version of it, I also respect the members right to vote as they choose. As should the President and GC.
cpdude, all your arguments were mulled over in the leadup to the vote on RP07. So the vote went the way it did. And now you trot out the same arguments justifying the subsequent actions of the President and GC when they didn't like the outcome. I have sat and watched votes not go the way I liked in the past on various issues, but I didn't continue to try to have my view imposed after the vote, and I didn't spit the dummy and leave the AOA either.
Rightly or wrongly, we vote, we accept the outcome, we go from there. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BScaler I agree we accept the outcome if that is the only choice. What wasn't voted on was the option to go back and get more. I'm sure the company said that's it and we went to a vote on RP07. I also think that they thought we would accept RP07. We didn't and I'm sure they are very surprised.
Maybe now they will now loosen those purse strings and give a little more, it's worth a try. This kind of back and forth happens all the time in workers negotiating a new contract so why can't it work now with Cathay?
I think everyone wants more and I guess a few are just getting hung up on the technical approach or path to that conclusion. In a few months it just won’t matter as we will either have more or much less!
I suspect like most in the AOA that voted “No” to RP07, I didn’t vote it down because I wanted RP01 in. Far from it. I voted it down so improvements could be made to RP07, in particular leave credits and reserve credits. I will reserve my decision on the AOA’s request for extending RP04 by four months until I see the results of any negotiations that may take place.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect like most in the AOA that voted “No” to RP07, I didn’t vote it down because I wanted RP01 in. Far from it. I voted it down so improvements could be made to RP07, in particular leave credits and reserve credits. I will reserve my decision on the AOA’s request for extending RP04 by four months until I see the results of any negotiations that may take place.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: a few places
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voted No for the same reasons as 404Titan, Striker58 and others, and like them will be a yes voter if those issues are fixed.
ST did what he did because a lot of members have told him why they voted No and what the GC needs to do to get a yes vote from them.
Unfortunatly for ST he should have run this extention past the membership first.
That said it is done (better not do that again ST
) so lets ammend RP07 and get on with it.
ST did what he did because a lot of members have told him why they voted No and what the GC needs to do to get a yes vote from them.
Unfortunatly for ST he should have run this extention past the membership first.
That said it is done (better not do that again ST
) so lets ammend RP07 and get on with it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BScaler
BScaler,
I can only commend you on your outstanding contributions to this forum regards COS07.... Well done and thanks.
Most surprisingly however, is that I (as no doubt many others also) have learnt more from your explanations than from the missives sent out to us from the Pres and the AOA in total.... and we are just two days away from the close of voting..... Actually, the Pres's last missive was a JOKE if it is expected to be a comprehensive comparison of the pro's and con's....this is not withstanding that he closes with an endorsement that we vote in favour of the COS07 proposal.... How short are they trying to sell the new joiners and as you have clearly stated, ourselves in the future.
If the company want the experience and the convenience afforded by recruiting DEFO's, as well as a unified salary base, then they can jolly well pay them the same as the rest of us.
There is no debate on this proposal... My vote has been in for some time and the vote is NO.
I can only commend you on your outstanding contributions to this forum regards COS07.... Well done and thanks.
Most surprisingly however, is that I (as no doubt many others also) have learnt more from your explanations than from the missives sent out to us from the Pres and the AOA in total.... and we are just two days away from the close of voting..... Actually, the Pres's last missive was a JOKE if it is expected to be a comprehensive comparison of the pro's and con's....this is not withstanding that he closes with an endorsement that we vote in favour of the COS07 proposal.... How short are they trying to sell the new joiners and as you have clearly stated, ourselves in the future.
If the company want the experience and the convenience afforded by recruiting DEFO's, as well as a unified salary base, then they can jolly well pay them the same as the rest of us.
There is no debate on this proposal... My vote has been in for some time and the vote is NO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read the latest AOA newsletter outlining pros and cons.
It has come out three days before voting on CoS07 closes and finally acknowledges many of the objections that have been presented by email to the GC and laid out in the AOA forum, as well as Pprune. I think this should have been presented to members alot earlier in the process, not at the last minute like this, as it still contains points open to debate. The newsletter continues to promote the agreement using what I consider to be skewed logic.
Here are a few examples of how the current Newsletter promotes the agreement in erroneous ways:
i) Facilitates recruitment as First Officer to a Passenger Base and encourages future recruitment of DEFO to Hong Kong following the Transition Period.
This could occur under the present CoS that we enjoy, with no leave or pay penalty for New Joiners. We do not need new CoS to facilitate recruitment in this manner.
ii) Will eventually permit First Officers to be based at 'Freighter Only' ports on Passenger terms.
This would be because under the new agreement New Joiners would be obligated to fly freighters and passenger aircraft. Officers joining the Company since 2002 have been asked to sign a waiver allowing them to do so anyway. The Passenger terms mentioned relate of course to the lesser pay and leave provisions in CoS07, not our current CoS.
iii) Improves utilisation of Freighter C&T resources.
Surely this is a plus for the Company, not necessarily the aircrew body. Who exactly is this agreement being plugged at here?!
iv) Common salary structure across base areas. Consistent relationship between CN and FO pay.
And except for a few minor examples, at generally lower rates! In the case of USAB, significantly lower rates. How can a common salary structure be seen as an advantage if we are giving New Joiners pay away at the same time?
v) Elimination of JFO HDP rate. FO rate paid from starting in the right hand seat for SO upgrading. 15% increase.
Considering that this particular candidate would be paid current JFO1 salary to start, with no chance of skipping JFO2 step as most current Officers do, it is a pitiful 'hand back'. The 15% increase referred to, is 15% of approximately 5% of an Officers salary. Read less than 1% difference in take home pay! Why are we given such misleading numbers?
These are a few examples and in the interests of brevity, not exhaustive.
In my view, even if, as a result of the successful passing of this agreement:
1) the scheduling of pay talks were guaranteed;
2) we stood to gain better industrial relations;
3) a few current (mainly freighter) Officers stood to gain from it;
it would still not be worth voting to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners for doing the same job as we do now.
We would shoot ourselves in the foot with regard to future pay negotiations because we had just agreed to lesser pay for New Joiners, and of course industrial negotiations would be excellent if we rubber-stamped everything the Company wanted from us! New Joiners, however, would be less thrilled.
Our current CoS allows for the hiring of DEFOs, the Company is not in extremis and does not require relief at this time, and unless something better can be negotiated, I believe we should stick with what we have.
It has come out three days before voting on CoS07 closes and finally acknowledges many of the objections that have been presented by email to the GC and laid out in the AOA forum, as well as Pprune. I think this should have been presented to members alot earlier in the process, not at the last minute like this, as it still contains points open to debate. The newsletter continues to promote the agreement using what I consider to be skewed logic.
Here are a few examples of how the current Newsletter promotes the agreement in erroneous ways:
i) Facilitates recruitment as First Officer to a Passenger Base and encourages future recruitment of DEFO to Hong Kong following the Transition Period.
This could occur under the present CoS that we enjoy, with no leave or pay penalty for New Joiners. We do not need new CoS to facilitate recruitment in this manner.
ii) Will eventually permit First Officers to be based at 'Freighter Only' ports on Passenger terms.
This would be because under the new agreement New Joiners would be obligated to fly freighters and passenger aircraft. Officers joining the Company since 2002 have been asked to sign a waiver allowing them to do so anyway. The Passenger terms mentioned relate of course to the lesser pay and leave provisions in CoS07, not our current CoS.
iii) Improves utilisation of Freighter C&T resources.
Surely this is a plus for the Company, not necessarily the aircrew body. Who exactly is this agreement being plugged at here?!
iv) Common salary structure across base areas. Consistent relationship between CN and FO pay.
And except for a few minor examples, at generally lower rates! In the case of USAB, significantly lower rates. How can a common salary structure be seen as an advantage if we are giving New Joiners pay away at the same time?
v) Elimination of JFO HDP rate. FO rate paid from starting in the right hand seat for SO upgrading. 15% increase.
Considering that this particular candidate would be paid current JFO1 salary to start, with no chance of skipping JFO2 step as most current Officers do, it is a pitiful 'hand back'. The 15% increase referred to, is 15% of approximately 5% of an Officers salary. Read less than 1% difference in take home pay! Why are we given such misleading numbers?
These are a few examples and in the interests of brevity, not exhaustive.
In my view, even if, as a result of the successful passing of this agreement:
1) the scheduling of pay talks were guaranteed;
2) we stood to gain better industrial relations;
3) a few current (mainly freighter) Officers stood to gain from it;
it would still not be worth voting to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners for doing the same job as we do now.
We would shoot ourselves in the foot with regard to future pay negotiations because we had just agreed to lesser pay for New Joiners, and of course industrial negotiations would be excellent if we rubber-stamped everything the Company wanted from us! New Joiners, however, would be less thrilled.
Our current CoS allows for the hiring of DEFOs, the Company is not in extremis and does not require relief at this time, and unless something better can be negotiated, I believe we should stick with what we have.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAST DAY TO VOTE.
If you are an AOA member reading this today, Monday 9 October, and you have not voted on CoS07, then get online and put your vote in either way.
Only 75% of members voted on RP07. It is in everyones best interest to see close to a 100% voter turnout for CoS07.
If you are not sure how to vote, then call the AOA office and they will guide you through the sign-on and voting process.
Just do it.
If you are an AOA member reading this today, Monday 9 October, and you have not voted on CoS07, then get online and put your vote in either way.
Only 75% of members voted on RP07. It is in everyones best interest to see close to a 100% voter turnout for CoS07.
If you are not sure how to vote, then call the AOA office and they will guide you through the sign-on and voting process.
Just do it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
v) Elimination of JFO HDP rate. FO rate paid from starting in the right hand seat for SO upgrading. 15% increase.
Considering that this particular candidate would be paid current JFO1 salary to start, with no chance of skipping JFO2 step as most current Officers do, it is a pitiful 'hand back'. The 15% increase referred to, is 15% of approximately 5% of an Officers salary. Read less than 1% difference in take home pay! Why are we given such misleading numbers?
Considering that this particular candidate would be paid current JFO1 salary to start, with no chance of skipping JFO2 step as most current Officers do, it is a pitiful 'hand back'. The 15% increase referred to, is 15% of approximately 5% of an Officers salary. Read less than 1% difference in take home pay! Why are we given such misleading numbers?
This agreement (DEFO) should have been vigorously endorsed by the GC as "UNACCEPTABLE" and shouldn't even have gone to a vote.... The fact that it did should have elicited an endorsement by the GC, to the members, encouraging to vote in precisely that manner.
Who exactly are they representing here ?
The vote is "NO CONFIDENCE" !
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down Mr Octane.
The AOA have been heavily criticised in the past for turning down supposed offers and the concensus of opinion is that the members would like to be asked their opinion in the future. CoS 07 was put to the members as it was the best deal they could come to with the company at the time. It was given to us as something to vote on. Recommended, but without a particularly glowing endorsement.
We have voted, as we're entitled to do.
They have the result.
I have every confidence that they are looking after my best interests in a democratic fasion.
The AOA have been heavily criticised in the past for turning down supposed offers and the concensus of opinion is that the members would like to be asked their opinion in the future. CoS 07 was put to the members as it was the best deal they could come to with the company at the time. It was given to us as something to vote on. Recommended, but without a particularly glowing endorsement.
We have voted, as we're entitled to do.
They have the result.
I have every confidence that they are looking after my best interests in a democratic fasion.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In broad terms, we have substantially achieved that objective and added to it with benefit for
pilots in the eventual extinction of the Freighter FO CoS, partial dismantling of the ‘junior fleet’
concept as well as encouraging the re-opening of the DEFO route for Passenger FOs.
Moreover, there are clear financial and lifestyle gains within the proposal for many current and
future Officers. Progress towards overdue discussions on remuneration was also a top priority
and acceptance of this proposal clears the way for that process to begin. Therefore, there are
many sound reasons to support this Agreement."
LoopeyLoop.... Do accept my sincere apology, as it is not my intent to make rebuttal to your comment by way of a slinging match.....though I fathom how you might say that this is a statement "without a particularly glowing endorsement "