DEFO NO Vote
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: the fatigue curve
Breaking Agreements
Numero Cruncher you wrote
My original post
I know we can do DEFO (Hong Kong). Could some one please explain how they are recruiting direct to a base.
Or is it the simple answer of, lets break the contract.
My quote comes direct from the PBPA 06
so as far as I can see they are breaking PBPA 06 by recruiting direct to the bases?
Truckmasters
In the DEFO deal(that was voted down) I think the company weren't allowed to put any DEFOs in HKG for a few years. So without the deal they can do it anytime. The savings are to be had on basings...no housing, no education etc. Back in 99 a few management guys did some number crunching and worked out that it took about 2 years for an SO to make up in salary/housing etc what he cost in then subsequentely being upgraded to FO versus a DEFO. So with 3-4 years as an SO the company saves lots.
BUT....for the forseeable future it is capacity constrained in the training department. So obviously an FO for 10years takes less training than an SO for 4 followed by FO for 6. So I believe they are going to do the oz trips with 2FOs and any other trips they can. Ideally we would have no SOs but apparently there are not enough landings available to keep that many FOs current.
So to answer your question, yes they can and no they aren't breaking any agreement. They will have to pay bypass pay to any eligible SO. Now what exactly defines eligible nowadays is beyond me. If there are say 50DEFOs then there should be 50 SOs on bypass pay in HKG...assuming they are all 'eligible'!
In the DEFO deal(that was voted down) I think the company weren't allowed to put any DEFOs in HKG for a few years. So without the deal they can do it anytime. The savings are to be had on basings...no housing, no education etc. Back in 99 a few management guys did some number crunching and worked out that it took about 2 years for an SO to make up in salary/housing etc what he cost in then subsequentely being upgraded to FO versus a DEFO. So with 3-4 years as an SO the company saves lots.
BUT....for the forseeable future it is capacity constrained in the training department. So obviously an FO for 10years takes less training than an SO for 4 followed by FO for 6. So I believe they are going to do the oz trips with 2FOs and any other trips they can. Ideally we would have no SOs but apparently there are not enough landings available to keep that many FOs current.
So to answer your question, yes they can and no they aren't breaking any agreement. They will have to pay bypass pay to any eligible SO. Now what exactly defines eligible nowadays is beyond me. If there are say 50DEFOs then there should be 50 SOs on bypass pay in HKG...assuming they are all 'eligible'!
My original post
There will be no direct recruitment of Officers by any Basing company into any Base Area.
I know we can do DEFO (Hong Kong). Could some one please explain how they are recruiting direct to a base.
Or is it the simple answer of, lets break the contract.
My quote comes direct from the PBPA 06
so as far as I can see they are breaking PBPA 06 by recruiting direct to the bases?
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Truck and flagellatedmonkey
If there are no takers for the based position all the way down the seniority list, then they are not breaking the contract by employing directly onto the base. You have to be eligible to take the base....1000hrs heavy plus other stuff. And you have to want it...so if all SOs fail to want it or meet the requirements, then they can employ directly onto the base.
In the mid 1990s they were doing a defacto form of this...they would technically employ an FO onto a HKG base but on his first day in the company he would apply for and be accepted for a european basing...why? Cause no other FOs wanted it and there were vacancies.
So there is NO problem with them recruiting directly onto a base. What was/is a problem is recruiting a Pax fleet FO. That is why there is bypass pay. Two different issues.
clear as mud?
PS that quote from the basings agreement...that was to prevent Veta/OABL et al from setting up ASL like subsidiary companies. Its intent was to ensure that all employees that join CX are on a common seniority list. That way all basings/promotions etc come down to DoJ. In our current situation, I assume the DEFO will be recruited by CX and then resign at the same time to join OABL etc.
If there are no takers for the based position all the way down the seniority list, then they are not breaking the contract by employing directly onto the base. You have to be eligible to take the base....1000hrs heavy plus other stuff. And you have to want it...so if all SOs fail to want it or meet the requirements, then they can employ directly onto the base.
In the mid 1990s they were doing a defacto form of this...they would technically employ an FO onto a HKG base but on his first day in the company he would apply for and be accepted for a european basing...why? Cause no other FOs wanted it and there were vacancies.
So there is NO problem with them recruiting directly onto a base. What was/is a problem is recruiting a Pax fleet FO. That is why there is bypass pay. Two different issues.
clear as mud?
PS that quote from the basings agreement...that was to prevent Veta/OABL et al from setting up ASL like subsidiary companies. Its intent was to ensure that all employees that join CX are on a common seniority list. That way all basings/promotions etc come down to DoJ. In our current situation, I assume the DEFO will be recruited by CX and then resign at the same time to join OABL etc.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: UK
NC, that's exactly what happens. It's no different to the DEFOs on the freighter since 2000. One of the first thing they do is go to see AL or some other management type and resign from Cathay Pacific to join the basings company.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
quackers
I had AL on my Jumpseat not long ago and the SO I was with asked her about DEFO basings. She said if you have the experience you can apply. I must admit to not being 100% cognizant of the issues as I tend to ignore all basings NTCs being so happy living in HKG. But the impression I got from Andrea is that anyone can apply if suitable(ie hrs/experience).
chase it up...if you have a grievance contact the AOA GC...or if you aren't an AOA member, post your grievance somewhere on PPRUNE where it will be ignored;-)
I had AL on my Jumpseat not long ago and the SO I was with asked her about DEFO basings. She said if you have the experience you can apply. I must admit to not being 100% cognizant of the issues as I tend to ignore all basings NTCs being so happy living in HKG. But the impression I got from Andrea is that anyone can apply if suitable(ie hrs/experience).
chase it up...if you have a grievance contact the AOA GC...or if you aren't an AOA member, post your grievance somewhere on PPRUNE where it will be ignored;-)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
From: home
Ha Ha Ha. No Grade A S/O’s, No By-Pass Pay and we hire DEFO onto a base Free of Charge.
You must know by now, we disregard contracts when we need to. Take us to court, by the time we enter a court room, the pilots would have forgotten all about it.
Got a grievance, call Beijing.
The Management
You must know by now, we disregard contracts when we need to. Take us to court, by the time we enter a court room, the pilots would have forgotten all about it.
Got a grievance, call Beijing.
The Management
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
From: Over There
Who cares anymore...let the company do what they want...they will anyways!
It will take time but in time people just won't come to CX like they used to! Oh that day of parked aircraft because of a staff shortage is near...very near!
It will take time but in time people just won't come to CX like they used to! Oh that day of parked aircraft because of a staff shortage is near...very near!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 200
Likes: 1
From: EARTH (WHY I DONT KNOW)
Sorry CP dude you are still the highest paid airline in the world, and many people are looking at the move. An F/o position in CX is better than a Capt position in many other airlines.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
From: home
Cpdude, I invite you to drop by recruitment or ask someone who works for Emirates or a Middle Eastern , Asian , New Zealand, Australian, Canadian, African or any American Airline. Why do you think we have the Senior Pilots working on lesser conditions. You will be working on those conditions beyond 55 to age 65.
Resisting is Futile and when we lose, we win. Don’t join the AOA it is pointless, save your money. You will need it for your retirement at age 65. We still receive a percentage from Fidelity on your retirement fund, so it is called.
The S/O that are Grade A will be JFO's before the DEFO's arrive, so no bypass pay will be paid.
The Management.
Resisting is Futile and when we lose, we win. Don’t join the AOA it is pointless, save your money. You will need it for your retirement at age 65. We still receive a percentage from Fidelity on your retirement fund, so it is called.
The S/O that are Grade A will be JFO's before the DEFO's arrive, so no bypass pay will be paid.
The Management.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 476
Likes: 2
Ramboflyer, that is absolute bullsh1t
try BA, luftansa, air france, united, delta, american, ups , fed ex but to name a few without even thinking hard..... have a look at a 5 yr capt with united or fed ex compared to based capt with CX in any based port....have a look at provident fund....hey....just have alook before making such grossely wrong statements for you have not got a clue
try BA, luftansa, air france, united, delta, american, ups , fed ex but to name a few without even thinking hard..... have a look at a 5 yr capt with united or fed ex compared to based capt with CX in any based port....have a look at provident fund....hey....just have alook before making such grossely wrong statements for you have not got a clue
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
From: home
So why are you here? Shouldn’t you be at those airlines mentioned above?
From our point of view:
1. Pilots will work for lesser conditions, so why not.
2. We can abuse contracts in Hong Kong and get away with it, so why not.
3. We look at 2nd and 3rd tier airlines on a base to adjust pay and it works.
4. We offer degraded benefits to new joiner and pilots join.
5. We ask the pilots/AOA for lesser condition and you agree. In the hope of a pay increase.
6. We abuse rostering and the pilots don’t complain. The job gets done.
7. We rule by intimidation and pilots work in fear.
8. We interpret the AFTL’s and the CAD allows it.
9. Our lawyers interpret HK Law and the HK Courts agree.
What is one to do?
We are in the business of making money, not making employees happy or satisfied. If we can take money from your wallet, it is fair play. If you die one day after retirement, we save a pay out. It’s cheaper if you die than to keep you healthy.
If we reduce pay and conditions to half of what the other major airlines pay, where would all the pilots move? Not many would leave, we know it and you know it. Last we checked, not many proper paying contracts. We attract with the benefits we offer ( we are not looking for Tier 1 pilots) and slowly take them away. By the time you realise this, where will you go? We are very happy with Seniority based system of the world airlines, retains pilots from moving and starting on the bottom of a list, as with no poaching agreements. We have you in our grasp!
In the long term we must reduce conditions. We cannot afford to pay housing, other benefits and increased pay if we want to expand the airline. It was possible when we had 500 pilots but now we have 2000 pilots and anticipate 3000-4000 pilots in the next 5-10 years. We simply cannot afford it. We have to fund the expansion while maintaining OUR bonuses.
Our philosophy is to keep your money bucket empty. When it becomes full it breeds resistance and we cannot afford it. Ask yourself why all the airlines of the world are pursuing reduced or no pensions?
If we could have aeroplanes void of pilots, we would. If we could have just one pilot in the cockpit, we would but the world is not ready for that, yet.
When resistance exists i.e. recruitment ceases and/or the aeroplanes stop flying, we will have to address the situation (termination's, etc.). Until then, Happy Flying.
The Management.
From our point of view:
1. Pilots will work for lesser conditions, so why not.
2. We can abuse contracts in Hong Kong and get away with it, so why not.
3. We look at 2nd and 3rd tier airlines on a base to adjust pay and it works.
4. We offer degraded benefits to new joiner and pilots join.
5. We ask the pilots/AOA for lesser condition and you agree. In the hope of a pay increase.
6. We abuse rostering and the pilots don’t complain. The job gets done.
7. We rule by intimidation and pilots work in fear.
8. We interpret the AFTL’s and the CAD allows it.
9. Our lawyers interpret HK Law and the HK Courts agree.
What is one to do?
We are in the business of making money, not making employees happy or satisfied. If we can take money from your wallet, it is fair play. If you die one day after retirement, we save a pay out. It’s cheaper if you die than to keep you healthy.
If we reduce pay and conditions to half of what the other major airlines pay, where would all the pilots move? Not many would leave, we know it and you know it. Last we checked, not many proper paying contracts. We attract with the benefits we offer ( we are not looking for Tier 1 pilots) and slowly take them away. By the time you realise this, where will you go? We are very happy with Seniority based system of the world airlines, retains pilots from moving and starting on the bottom of a list, as with no poaching agreements. We have you in our grasp!
In the long term we must reduce conditions. We cannot afford to pay housing, other benefits and increased pay if we want to expand the airline. It was possible when we had 500 pilots but now we have 2000 pilots and anticipate 3000-4000 pilots in the next 5-10 years. We simply cannot afford it. We have to fund the expansion while maintaining OUR bonuses.
Our philosophy is to keep your money bucket empty. When it becomes full it breeds resistance and we cannot afford it. Ask yourself why all the airlines of the world are pursuing reduced or no pensions?
If we could have aeroplanes void of pilots, we would. If we could have just one pilot in the cockpit, we would but the world is not ready for that, yet.
When resistance exists i.e. recruitment ceases and/or the aeroplanes stop flying, we will have to address the situation (termination's, etc.). Until then, Happy Flying.
The Management.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 2
From: 3.5 from TD
"Dont forget to factor in the decrease in pay/benefits that CX awards you after many years of service, once you hit 55. Who could imagine that someone in the twilight of their career would be forced onto lesser conditions to appease the greed of an airline."
First of all, CX doesn't award you !!!!t at 55. Those pilots elected to work past 55. When they were hired, they were told that retirement was at 55, so they can only look at still working here as pure luck. It is spelled out very clearly on the employment contract; retirement age 55. Plain and simple.
Second of all, the company did not "force" them to stay. They chose to stay. That is a very big mistake on your part. That is like calling consentual sex between two parties rape. Sure, both cases might involve intercourse, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Like the difference between being asked to do something or being ordered/forced to do something. Hopefully you get the point now.
Re-treads aren't being forced to work here past 55. They elected to do this and have agreed to the terms under which they work. They could have chosen to go somewhere else and work there, but they said no, and agreed to stay here at CX. Them complaining about "lower pay" is as silly as a new hire complaining about pay.
And please also keep in mind that the reason they're paid less is because they accepted the company's offer. If they would have stuck to their guns, they would have probably gotten a better deal. It is that simple. And that is why I just don't have any sympathy for Re-treads' bitching. I've flown with many, and I have no personal problem with them; I'll even listen to you bitch while we are out drinking.
But I assure you that you will not recieve any sympathy from me.
First of all, CX doesn't award you !!!!t at 55. Those pilots elected to work past 55. When they were hired, they were told that retirement was at 55, so they can only look at still working here as pure luck. It is spelled out very clearly on the employment contract; retirement age 55. Plain and simple.
Second of all, the company did not "force" them to stay. They chose to stay. That is a very big mistake on your part. That is like calling consentual sex between two parties rape. Sure, both cases might involve intercourse, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Like the difference between being asked to do something or being ordered/forced to do something. Hopefully you get the point now.
Re-treads aren't being forced to work here past 55. They elected to do this and have agreed to the terms under which they work. They could have chosen to go somewhere else and work there, but they said no, and agreed to stay here at CX. Them complaining about "lower pay" is as silly as a new hire complaining about pay.
And please also keep in mind that the reason they're paid less is because they accepted the company's offer. If they would have stuck to their guns, they would have probably gotten a better deal. It is that simple. And that is why I just don't have any sympathy for Re-treads' bitching. I've flown with many, and I have no personal problem with them; I'll even listen to you bitch while we are out drinking.
But I assure you that you will not recieve any sympathy from me.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
From: HKG
Sqwak7700,
"When they were hired, they were told that retirement was at 55,"
They were also told that they were on A-scales and having had that contract broken by the company at least twice they are fully entitled to expect to make up their financial losses by working on.
I'm sure they're not bothered whether they have your sympathy or not but facts are facts and you are correct that they've accepted the substandard package (unless they're trainers).
"When they were hired, they were told that retirement was at 55,"
They were also told that they were on A-scales and having had that contract broken by the company at least twice they are fully entitled to expect to make up their financial losses by working on.
I'm sure they're not bothered whether they have your sympathy or not but facts are facts and you are correct that they've accepted the substandard package (unless they're trainers).
Last edited by BusyB; 19th November 2006 at 14:57.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 2
From: 3.5 from TD
You cant wait until something turns personal to take action. If they did it to the A-scalers, once they are gone they will start to work on the B-scalers, then the soon to be COS07 scalers. Its inevitable. So if we dont support those guys, then we can only expect the same when we are late in our career with no other options or ability to do something about it.
Now, if you are staying and have negotiated the same package, then I'm with you. Good for you, I would have done the same thing. But if you haven't, if you have accepted lesser conditions, then you are just pissing in the pool, man. Lots of people still want it clean, and here you come, happy to swim in urine
You are right about something FCUX, they will come after all of us at one point. They might have thought about raising the retirement age before, but I can assure you they won't now. They know that if they have the option of short-changing people when they are 55, they can save more money. They know that a 55 year old pilot is gonna be much more desperate than a younger guy just joining. You know how they know that? Cause they are doing it right now and most are taking it.
What will I do when I'm 55? Well, hopefully I'll still have enough piss and vinegar left in me to tell them where they can stuff the lower pay instead of staying and releasing some of that piss in the pool. Then I would take my skills somewhere else, but lets just hope I don't need to work that long.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: a few places
Sqwak7700 
I love the way they (the re-treads) will tell you they stayed cos they need the money, have they had a look at the contracts going at the moment?
Leave, don't stay and line the pockets of management who will get nice fat bonuses because their wage budget looks better with every extension.
I love the way they (the re-treads) will tell you they stayed cos they need the money, have they had a look at the contracts going at the moment?
Leave, don't stay and line the pockets of management who will get nice fat bonuses because their wage budget looks better with every extension.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I have to agree with you 7700.
These guys knew what they were doing. If there was some nice simple, legal way for us to force the company to extend on current terms it would already have been done. They have been 'de facto' extending for years by allowing guys to go onto the freighters at 55.
I joined knowing I would have to leave at 55. Like many here I hope to leave long before then anyway.
No sympathy from this little black duck!
These guys knew what they were doing. If there was some nice simple, legal way for us to force the company to extend on current terms it would already have been done. They have been 'de facto' extending for years by allowing guys to go onto the freighters at 55.
I joined knowing I would have to leave at 55. Like many here I hope to leave long before then anyway.
No sympathy from this little black duck!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Everywhere
The only part of the contract I can see about extensions is in the Bypass Pay section. It does not state on what conditions those extensions will be, so I would say they would have to be on current conditions.
If the Re Thread is extended beyond 55 on a different contract, then the Re-Thread is a Direct Entry Captain which I don't think is allowed in our contract. All God likes must come from the CX Seniority list. This is no different than hiring off the street of DE Capt on a lower COS.
The Re-Thread is either extended on current conditions or the Re-Tread retires. There is no in-between in the contract.
I think a Dudge in the HK Court system would likely see it that way.
If the Re Thread is extended beyond 55 on a different contract, then the Re-Thread is a Direct Entry Captain which I don't think is allowed in our contract. All God likes must come from the CX Seniority list. This is no different than hiring off the street of DE Capt on a lower COS.
The Re-Thread is either extended on current conditions or the Re-Tread retires. There is no in-between in the contract.
I think a Dudge in the HK Court system would likely see it that way.
Last edited by Mr. Bloggs; 20th November 2006 at 20:39.
