RP07 Revote?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jtr
yeah I don't get it either. I just assume that the GC of the time thought it was the best path to follow! With 20/20 hindsight I think I would rather have taken them to court using MAG's case, than have RP04 and then fallback!!!!
W2
I have spoken to the AOA rostering egg heads. They are of the firm belief that fallback hurts us, not CX. If you can illuminate an alternative argument I would love to hear it.
No its not doom and gloom if we end up on fallback and yes they can do another 'sign or be fired' if it is in our COS. But I would rather have the choice to sign or be fired than have RPs as CX policy, unilaterally changeable by them. So if we go to the fallback we will most likely end up in a situation where we will never need to worry about 'sign or be fired' as they can change RPs right up to AFTLS limits...and even those can be changed with the approval of CAD. I would rather have 3man ULR in my contract than subject to collusion between CX/CAD!
What I would like to see is quantitative information. Not generalisations(of which I know I am guilty;-) of how the company will be unable to man the fleet on fallback. Why? What extra protections do we have in fallback? I know the initial position on May 1st is 6hr reserve(which I like) and 5-4-3. I don't understand the dynamics but I know that we lose 5-4-3 at some stage(within 4 years). Maybe someone in the know can explain it better.
Anyway, lets talk about 6hr reserve and 5-4-3.
There is no doubt that they will need to roster more reserve under fallback. On ULR fleets that is do-able. On the 777??? On the bus with its mixed fleet flying it is also do-able(IMHO). Have you been G/O days off limited in your rostering over the last 2 years?
5-4-3...this means 3 days off before a regional...so if you are bus or 777 from late this year you will get 3days off instead of the table X minimum of 2(or more). I can only go by my rosters and what I hear from others; none of us have been days off limited. I suspect the 777 may be. I think that will alleviate with the 777ERs bringing them more into airbus rostering. On the 400...hmmmm....some ULR patterns are 3 days, most are 4 and a few are longer. Take the average of 4 and you can do 3 1/2 patterns per month under 5-4-3 for about 84ish hrs. So, can't see where it hurts them. People wanting to commute will still waive their 5-4-3 for W patterns. The 700 'productive' hr limit applies to about 20 to 30 people..with the 14% loading for 2man crew on RP07 it equates to about 800 credit hrs anyway(close to what we do now!).
So I really can't see how fallback hurts CX in the short term and I know that they will be better off in the longterm under AFTLS!
The assumption that everything they offer is bad is understandable. But in 1993 they offered CPAPF in lieu of CPALRS (A scale PF) to any A scalers that wanted it. Well, 2 of my very financially savvy friends and I worked out that the new 15.5% scheme was better than the old A scale scheme for about 11-13 years. And in fact it is better for people that have done 17years than staying in CPALRS.
My point is not everything the company offers has to be bad for us, good for them.
I am curious as to what would happen in the fallback...whether a court would find our RPs contractual or CX policy, but I am not prepared to 'volunteer'(by voting RP07 down) for a few years of crappy rostering to find out.
I am still firmly a YES voter....I wait to read/hear information that would make me vote otherwise.
yeah I don't get it either. I just assume that the GC of the time thought it was the best path to follow! With 20/20 hindsight I think I would rather have taken them to court using MAG's case, than have RP04 and then fallback!!!!
W2
I have spoken to the AOA rostering egg heads. They are of the firm belief that fallback hurts us, not CX. If you can illuminate an alternative argument I would love to hear it.
No its not doom and gloom if we end up on fallback and yes they can do another 'sign or be fired' if it is in our COS. But I would rather have the choice to sign or be fired than have RPs as CX policy, unilaterally changeable by them. So if we go to the fallback we will most likely end up in a situation where we will never need to worry about 'sign or be fired' as they can change RPs right up to AFTLS limits...and even those can be changed with the approval of CAD. I would rather have 3man ULR in my contract than subject to collusion between CX/CAD!
What I would like to see is quantitative information. Not generalisations(of which I know I am guilty;-) of how the company will be unable to man the fleet on fallback. Why? What extra protections do we have in fallback? I know the initial position on May 1st is 6hr reserve(which I like) and 5-4-3. I don't understand the dynamics but I know that we lose 5-4-3 at some stage(within 4 years). Maybe someone in the know can explain it better.
Anyway, lets talk about 6hr reserve and 5-4-3.
There is no doubt that they will need to roster more reserve under fallback. On ULR fleets that is do-able. On the 777??? On the bus with its mixed fleet flying it is also do-able(IMHO). Have you been G/O days off limited in your rostering over the last 2 years?
5-4-3...this means 3 days off before a regional...so if you are bus or 777 from late this year you will get 3days off instead of the table X minimum of 2(or more). I can only go by my rosters and what I hear from others; none of us have been days off limited. I suspect the 777 may be. I think that will alleviate with the 777ERs bringing them more into airbus rostering. On the 400...hmmmm....some ULR patterns are 3 days, most are 4 and a few are longer. Take the average of 4 and you can do 3 1/2 patterns per month under 5-4-3 for about 84ish hrs. So, can't see where it hurts them. People wanting to commute will still waive their 5-4-3 for W patterns. The 700 'productive' hr limit applies to about 20 to 30 people..with the 14% loading for 2man crew on RP07 it equates to about 800 credit hrs anyway(close to what we do now!).
So I really can't see how fallback hurts CX in the short term and I know that they will be better off in the longterm under AFTLS!
The assumption that everything they offer is bad is understandable. But in 1993 they offered CPAPF in lieu of CPALRS (A scale PF) to any A scalers that wanted it. Well, 2 of my very financially savvy friends and I worked out that the new 15.5% scheme was better than the old A scale scheme for about 11-13 years. And in fact it is better for people that have done 17years than staying in CPALRS.
My point is not everything the company offers has to be bad for us, good for them.
I am curious as to what would happen in the fallback...whether a court would find our RPs contractual or CX policy, but I am not prepared to 'volunteer'(by voting RP07 down) for a few years of crappy rostering to find out.
I am still firmly a YES voter....I wait to read/hear information that would make me vote otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Discovery Bay
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay never really had any competition WITHIN Hong Kong. Now I see the ramp full of OTHER Hong Kong airlines. I see Cathay using that as a leverage to get us to TAKE PAY CUTS!! The dreaded "we need to get competitive" plea.
Enjoy that B scale while you can!
And you thought drinking at the 7/11 in DB was bad!!!
Enjoy that B scale while you can!
And you thought drinking at the 7/11 in DB was bad!!!
Last edited by A/T less; 6th Jan 2007 at 13:16.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korean Air is offering 12K USD (after tax) + annual bonus + per diems + overtime pay past 75hrs. They promise 12 days off consecutively and I understand that the salary may increase as they are not getting the numbers they want.
No, this is not "A" scale or even the higher "B" scale pay yet but the starting point is the same and currently they both go up with annual increments which would make it very foolish for CX to try and cut the "B" scale pay.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there are some serious misunderstanding of the fallback mechanism and the impact on the crew. Unfortunately the way the motions are structured a positive vote of 66% is required and last time although a majority voted in favour (56%) the rules meant the motion failed due mainly to 250 members not placing enough importance on the issue to take the time to vote. It is stretching the truth a little when it is claimed we rejected RP04/07last time, however the motion did not pass that is true.
If this happens again the INTERIM FALLBACK becomes RP01….a system imposed by the company and a system they are very content with. This would most likely trigger a court case on rostering and several outcomes are possible. A total victory would probably mean we would get RP94 as the default system, again another company imposed system that the HKAOA has been trying to dismantle since its inception. A loss would mean the company will use the FTL document as its basis for rostering in around 4 years from now.
The so called 700 hour system (RP94) is very agricultural and for example a North American pilot based in JFK or YTO in fact has to add 425 “funny credit” hours to his total as well as 2 hours per ULR sector and that averages about 30 sectors taking his productive hours to 760 and grand total to about 1185 per year, some 112 hours per month average before overtime. A HKG based ULR pilot has 760+93 resulting in around 80 hours per month.
Whilst productive hour overtime is voluntary it is based on an annual and quarterly basis and rarely was achieved, yet some months you could be rostered 110 total hours. The “funny credit hours” is not voluntary and it included DT/BT, simulator, and unlimited days of reserve up to 12 hours at a time. The overtime rate for these funny credit hours is a massive $300 HKD per hour!, for Captains and less for FO and SO’s.
Because the company attempts to avoid overtime the net result is a very uneven distribution of workload between crew with some crew on 30 hours and others on 100 plus per month scheduled. The live rosters were manipulated to keep overtime to a minimum resulting in massive roster disruption.
RP07 certainly has its weak points and my blood boils when is see comments from the company about “so called WORK STACKING”…….with the credit at 2 hours per day for leave it is simple….they work stack in months of leave and it is just simply not fair. Reserve needs work, however some control is possible over your schedule and lifestyle.
Whilst grossly annoyed at the contempt they show for their employees (the mind boggles at how they deal with suppliers, customers, Govt’s and aircraft suppliers), however on balance we must decide if we want the interim fallback and permanent results that a rejection takes us to. We must know exactly what 700 hours means…it certainly does not mean 700 hours…if you know what I mean! The vote is on rostering and not about pay, don’t cut off your nose on this issue.
Rejection pretty well puts rostering in the hands of the company with lifestyle provisions at their discretion, unlimited reserve and O days, no Joker days and the list goes on. if you are not members then become members and have a say, and if you are a member I hope you are not one of the 250 who failed to vote last time and allowed the minority to win by default.
If this happens again the INTERIM FALLBACK becomes RP01….a system imposed by the company and a system they are very content with. This would most likely trigger a court case on rostering and several outcomes are possible. A total victory would probably mean we would get RP94 as the default system, again another company imposed system that the HKAOA has been trying to dismantle since its inception. A loss would mean the company will use the FTL document as its basis for rostering in around 4 years from now.
The so called 700 hour system (RP94) is very agricultural and for example a North American pilot based in JFK or YTO in fact has to add 425 “funny credit” hours to his total as well as 2 hours per ULR sector and that averages about 30 sectors taking his productive hours to 760 and grand total to about 1185 per year, some 112 hours per month average before overtime. A HKG based ULR pilot has 760+93 resulting in around 80 hours per month.
Whilst productive hour overtime is voluntary it is based on an annual and quarterly basis and rarely was achieved, yet some months you could be rostered 110 total hours. The “funny credit hours” is not voluntary and it included DT/BT, simulator, and unlimited days of reserve up to 12 hours at a time. The overtime rate for these funny credit hours is a massive $300 HKD per hour!, for Captains and less for FO and SO’s.
Because the company attempts to avoid overtime the net result is a very uneven distribution of workload between crew with some crew on 30 hours and others on 100 plus per month scheduled. The live rosters were manipulated to keep overtime to a minimum resulting in massive roster disruption.
RP07 certainly has its weak points and my blood boils when is see comments from the company about “so called WORK STACKING”…….with the credit at 2 hours per day for leave it is simple….they work stack in months of leave and it is just simply not fair. Reserve needs work, however some control is possible over your schedule and lifestyle.
Whilst grossly annoyed at the contempt they show for their employees (the mind boggles at how they deal with suppliers, customers, Govt’s and aircraft suppliers), however on balance we must decide if we want the interim fallback and permanent results that a rejection takes us to. We must know exactly what 700 hours means…it certainly does not mean 700 hours…if you know what I mean! The vote is on rostering and not about pay, don’t cut off your nose on this issue.
Rejection pretty well puts rostering in the hands of the company with lifestyle provisions at their discretion, unlimited reserve and O days, no Joker days and the list goes on. if you are not members then become members and have a say, and if you are a member I hope you are not one of the 250 who failed to vote last time and allowed the minority to win by default.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jtr
It was meant to be factual, the average of over 12 months is about 80 however that includes productive plus credit and no factoring. One of the points I was trying to make was that in a single month you could be rostered for up to 88 productive plus no limit on credit hours, ie you could DT for another 30 ( as part of your annual base limit 93-425) have your roster filled with reserve and not get any overtime. In fact you could do that for 2 months in a row then be given a slack third month to avoid quarterly overtime. With annual and quarterly overtime a stand alone single month with high hours generates no reward. In that system leave has zero credit even worse than RP07. In RP 04 73 stick hours flown 2 crew @ 1.14 is around 84 credit hours.
It was meant to be factual, the average of over 12 months is about 80 however that includes productive plus credit and no factoring. One of the points I was trying to make was that in a single month you could be rostered for up to 88 productive plus no limit on credit hours, ie you could DT for another 30 ( as part of your annual base limit 93-425) have your roster filled with reserve and not get any overtime. In fact you could do that for 2 months in a row then be given a slack third month to avoid quarterly overtime. With annual and quarterly overtime a stand alone single month with high hours generates no reward. In that system leave has zero credit even worse than RP07. In RP 04 73 stick hours flown 2 crew @ 1.14 is around 84 credit hours.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril, Nobody wants the fallback but there is something better out there. There is just no incentive for anyone to go out and find it.
If we vote for RP07, what is the incentive to find something better. I think, with some time with the fallback, there will be incentive to find something better. It would not take much. The company just wants RP07and that will be the end.
It seems we always give in with the slightest amount of pressure. The DFO knows this(but very few pilots). Why are we afraid of the boogyman? Is it because this boogyman can fire you? I don't know.
How does one expect to get a payrise after this? What is CX's incentive to give one? No one leaves, lots of pilots wanting to join, the job gets done, and the pilots that complain about a payrise are the more accommodating to the company? Why would the DFO give a payrise.
If we vote for RP07, what is the incentive to find something better. I think, with some time with the fallback, there will be incentive to find something better. It would not take much. The company just wants RP07and that will be the end.
It seems we always give in with the slightest amount of pressure. The DFO knows this(but very few pilots). Why are we afraid of the boogyman? Is it because this boogyman can fire you? I don't know.
How does one expect to get a payrise after this? What is CX's incentive to give one? No one leaves, lots of pilots wanting to join, the job gets done, and the pilots that complain about a payrise are the more accommodating to the company? Why would the DFO give a payrise.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, you DID receive the newsletter from the AOA detailing the differences (substantial) in pay between a LON based VS crew and CXF crew at all ranks, didn't you? The numbers 43% and 20% spring to mind. I can assure you that if it went to the AOA membership, NR read it too - he knows the shortfall exists.
CX are struggling to find crew on bases, the wash rate on both interviews is staggering, and it's a little-concealed "secret" that many crew on the B74F are leaving or planning to leave...as soon as they get their call from UPS/FEDEX/UA/DL etc...
Our training machine is unable to keep up with aircraft deliveries. Oasis is draining whatever slack was out there and are grabbing many retirees, even calling guys at home - their DFO, AB, is mates with many potential OASIS new joiners. Don't forget that every 55-er that O8 grabs is one less extendee for Cathay.
Korean and Asiana are offering substantially improved contracts with major inducements like $$, days off and crew makeup. Rumour has it that even EK will have a much-improved package in the offering soon, as well as some bases becoming available. I can hear the stampede of hooves already.
I'll wager a significant proportion of my salary that there will be significant improvements on offer from NR soon - for the first time in my 27 year commercial aviation career, the pendulum has finally swung our way.
Just my 02c.
CX are struggling to find crew on bases, the wash rate on both interviews is staggering, and it's a little-concealed "secret" that many crew on the B74F are leaving or planning to leave...as soon as they get their call from UPS/FEDEX/UA/DL etc...
Our training machine is unable to keep up with aircraft deliveries. Oasis is draining whatever slack was out there and are grabbing many retirees, even calling guys at home - their DFO, AB, is mates with many potential OASIS new joiners. Don't forget that every 55-er that O8 grabs is one less extendee for Cathay.
Korean and Asiana are offering substantially improved contracts with major inducements like $$, days off and crew makeup. Rumour has it that even EK will have a much-improved package in the offering soon, as well as some bases becoming available. I can hear the stampede of hooves already.
I'll wager a significant proportion of my salary that there will be significant improvements on offer from NR soon - for the first time in my 27 year commercial aviation career, the pendulum has finally swung our way.
Just my 02c.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poor second impression
I do wonder what impression we would be giving if we vote yes to the original RP07?
I need to make clear that I voted NO to RP07 first time round - not because I was making a protest vote, but rather because IMHO it was a pretty good first draft that needed a couple of minor 'tweaks' to be given a resounding YES. Moreover, I lobbied almost everyone I flew with before making my decision, and felt that I needed to support their compelling arguments to decline it with my vote.
Imagine my surprise (
) when the amended version came back - to be clearly worse than the original offer.
The discussion is now about our voting yes to the original offer. If we do that, you can guarantee that every subsequent offer made by CX is going to as good as it gets. If we don't accept it, they will simply make the offer worse, and then we'll have to accept what they want. I can't see that we have any choice over this one. If we vote YES, having first blown it out of the water we have no credibility left at all, and we are actually making the task of the GC harder. We don't have enough people in the AOA as it is, if we can't even pull together then any vague chance that the company will take us seriously has gone.
Lets be honest too - whatever Korean (or any other airline) are paying, almost no-one is actually going to uproot their family and leave - it's simply not THAT bad. NR knows that as well as we do. I accept that US based guys who are being recalled off furlough are different matter - but still I would bet that the number of people who are actually going to leave will be pretty low.
I need to make clear that I voted NO to RP07 first time round - not because I was making a protest vote, but rather because IMHO it was a pretty good first draft that needed a couple of minor 'tweaks' to be given a resounding YES. Moreover, I lobbied almost everyone I flew with before making my decision, and felt that I needed to support their compelling arguments to decline it with my vote.
Imagine my surprise (
) when the amended version came back - to be clearly worse than the original offer.The discussion is now about our voting yes to the original offer. If we do that, you can guarantee that every subsequent offer made by CX is going to as good as it gets. If we don't accept it, they will simply make the offer worse, and then we'll have to accept what they want. I can't see that we have any choice over this one. If we vote YES, having first blown it out of the water we have no credibility left at all, and we are actually making the task of the GC harder. We don't have enough people in the AOA as it is, if we can't even pull together then any vague chance that the company will take us seriously has gone.
Lets be honest too - whatever Korean (or any other airline) are paying, almost no-one is actually going to uproot their family and leave - it's simply not THAT bad. NR knows that as well as we do. I accept that US based guys who are being recalled off furlough are different matter - but still I would bet that the number of people who are actually going to leave will be pretty low.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CU: How many guys are leaving for Korean? Korean will have to pay much more to take away CX pilots. I can't see it happening. The only ones leaving are some US freither guys. Don't think it is a mass exodus. There is always someone to fill the space.
How many crew going to VS? None comes to mind. Until it happens nothing will happen here. It seems we will live in a fire for a long time before we jump.
There can be a washout on interviews, but pilots still show up. They pick from them. Do they lower there standards? All new joiners are a lower standard whatever there position. I know I was until I got up to speed in a new operation.
Oasis is taking some 55ers but are CX counting on the 55ers continuing their contract? I think they consider that they fall off the ladder at 55. I don't know the situation with the 55ers joining Oasis.
EK getting a payrise, I will believe it when I see it. They can promise much but until it happens.................. That may bring it up to just below B Scale. A Scale is still 30% more than B Scale and guys are doing the same job. There are Cat D'ed A scale F/O's making more than a B Scale Captain.
Don't think the pendulum has swung. But that is my 02C worth.
How many crew going to VS? None comes to mind. Until it happens nothing will happen here. It seems we will live in a fire for a long time before we jump.
There can be a washout on interviews, but pilots still show up. They pick from them. Do they lower there standards? All new joiners are a lower standard whatever there position. I know I was until I got up to speed in a new operation.
Oasis is taking some 55ers but are CX counting on the 55ers continuing their contract? I think they consider that they fall off the ladder at 55. I don't know the situation with the 55ers joining Oasis.
EK getting a payrise, I will believe it when I see it. They can promise much but until it happens.................. That may bring it up to just below B Scale. A Scale is still 30% more than B Scale and guys are doing the same job. There are Cat D'ed A scale F/O's making more than a B Scale Captain.
Don't think the pendulum has swung. But that is my 02C worth.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey queensland frog
I was pretty certain the new RP07 mk2 would be worse as if the company made it better it would encourage us to knock back every deal, first time, in future.
CX has a very arrogant approach to deals it offers...it is almost always take it or leave it.
Back in 2001, the 'offer' on the table in early July(before the 49ers were created) was almost exactly what was subsequently imposed on us in late July. They offered it, we rejected it, they fired 49 people and then imposed the deal anyway.
So that is the culture we are dealing with. They do not like being dictated to by the proletariat(sp?).
So I agree that almost always the first offer will be the best. I don't know that voting No will change their attitude in future.
I was pretty certain the new RP07 mk2 would be worse as if the company made it better it would encourage us to knock back every deal, first time, in future.
CX has a very arrogant approach to deals it offers...it is almost always take it or leave it.
Back in 2001, the 'offer' on the table in early July(before the 49ers were created) was almost exactly what was subsequently imposed on us in late July. They offered it, we rejected it, they fired 49 people and then imposed the deal anyway.
So that is the culture we are dealing with. They do not like being dictated to by the proletariat(sp?).
So I agree that almost always the first offer will be the best. I don't know that voting No will change their attitude in future.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Discovery Bay
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why not? CX have always managed to hire people from countries with poor commercial aviation prospects.
Where are we going to turn to? Korean? Are you kidding me? I'd rather stay in Hong Kong and see my conditions getting chopped until I'll just get sick of it all and quit.
A Payrise? Now that's a whole different laughing matter!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: home
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would we ever improve our offer? It is going to pass.
You don't vote for this, we will make your life here intolerable and your rosters even more displeasing You think it will hurt us? We have the resources to bring YOU to YOUR knees much quicker. And we will do it. Most know we will and will vote FOR the motion. They know what we are capable of.
You have no where to go. We are still the best paying in the industry and very few are leaving.
Make is easy, just vote FOR. We will get what we want.
We can then move onto pay. We believe in Market Forces. We are the Best in the Region and we will be looking to adjust our pay figures inline with the pay scales in this region.
We have done quite well in the last few years in reducing your package, but is not quite over.
After changing your housing policy in 2001 we get better tax credits with Inland Revenue. More of the pilots are paying our tax bill. All your benefits are now cash allowances and YOU pay more tax and we get the credits. Thank you. You have done well. It’s the silent deal we have with the Inland Revenue Department.
We are working with the CAD to implement new AFTL's which will bring Europe to 3 pilot crew in both directions. This 15 hour duty and new 20 hour duty for ULH will help us immensely with our crewing. Pilots have demonstrated (by the use of discretion) that a 15 hour duty ULH is not fatiguing and we will be asking for that 2 hours of discretion taken out. Again, thank you for your input. With aircraft flying longer routes, we don't want to be limited with an 18 hour duty on crew. It is just not good for business.
We will be asking for an increase in Table A of the AFTL’s. We believe that normal tiredness will not be factor by increasing the Table A figures by 1 hour to start with. This will give us more productivity which will reduce cost, increase profits and more importantly our bonuses.
If any pilots have suggestions on how we can improve our quest for more profits and again more importantly our bonuses, please drop by to one of our many open doors.
The Management.
You don't vote for this, we will make your life here intolerable and your rosters even more displeasing You think it will hurt us? We have the resources to bring YOU to YOUR knees much quicker. And we will do it. Most know we will and will vote FOR the motion. They know what we are capable of.
You have no where to go. We are still the best paying in the industry and very few are leaving.
Make is easy, just vote FOR. We will get what we want.
We can then move onto pay. We believe in Market Forces. We are the Best in the Region and we will be looking to adjust our pay figures inline with the pay scales in this region.
We have done quite well in the last few years in reducing your package, but is not quite over.
After changing your housing policy in 2001 we get better tax credits with Inland Revenue. More of the pilots are paying our tax bill. All your benefits are now cash allowances and YOU pay more tax and we get the credits. Thank you. You have done well. It’s the silent deal we have with the Inland Revenue Department.
We are working with the CAD to implement new AFTL's which will bring Europe to 3 pilot crew in both directions. This 15 hour duty and new 20 hour duty for ULH will help us immensely with our crewing. Pilots have demonstrated (by the use of discretion) that a 15 hour duty ULH is not fatiguing and we will be asking for that 2 hours of discretion taken out. Again, thank you for your input. With aircraft flying longer routes, we don't want to be limited with an 18 hour duty on crew. It is just not good for business.
We will be asking for an increase in Table A of the AFTL’s. We believe that normal tiredness will not be factor by increasing the Table A figures by 1 hour to start with. This will give us more productivity which will reduce cost, increase profits and more importantly our bonuses.
If any pilots have suggestions on how we can improve our quest for more profits and again more importantly our bonuses, please drop by to one of our many open doors.
The Management.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
disappointed
After reading all of these posts and being a member of pprune and a pilot of CX for some time, I find myself disappointed with some of the answers I read when management puts out proposals. How spineless can some people be. Accepting anything that reduces Cos should be absolutely unacceptable....and the second time around on the same issue.....unbelievable. CX pilots should be fighting for better conditions, not trying to hold onto what they have. Is standing together as ONE such a difficult concept?? Do you think that management can arbitrarily impose conditions on the pilot group if it is not divided? There are 2000+ pilots here and 30+ planes arriving. They need us.....period. There cannot be an airline without us. With all of the growth and other companies hiring, they are not in a position to make any such demands. This is not SARs, or 11 Sept, or the asian economic crisis, or the gulf war. Is it that unclear that the company wants RP07, and if the company wants it, then it CANNOT be good for the pilot group as a whole. CX pilots need to start believing in themselves and acting together as a whole. We need to be ONE. The only facts that are present are, the company is making lots of money, we are growing, china is growing, revenue on the pax and cargo side is usually above target, etc, etc. With this blurb of info, how can anyone even ponder the idea of giving away anything??? Conditions need to improve in times like these. Listening to this management type, whoever he may be, makes my blood boil because he can define a typical CX pilot and believes he can see into their soul. He thinks he owns us!! and so does the actual CX management!!! Here's to putting a stop to this tradition of laying down, and accepting sh#t conditions, and starting to work as a whole. Individually the can fire us, but collectively they are powerless. That should be the spirit. We cannot stand for this type of abuse, and control.
" Listening to this management type, whoever he may be, makes my blood boil because he can define a typical CX pilot and believes he can see into their soul"
Some people will believe what anybody says
Some people will believe what anybody says
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: HKG
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we should vote it down so that there is more flexibility in the future. That way the excellent management team will ensure our future employment as the more flexible we can be the better the company can perform. I have no doubt that it will translate into a payrise for us or even a massive bonus.
Also voting it down will scare them senseless, they will be putty in our hands at the next vote I am sure.
Yes, might be some pain for us but registering our discontent will cause so much grief for the management they will not know whish way to turn and we will then be in control with all the backing of the Hong Kong labour laws!
Vote NO lets go back to RP04, let them know whos boss comrades.
Work Force
Also voting it down will scare them senseless, they will be putty in our hands at the next vote I am sure.
Yes, might be some pain for us but registering our discontent will cause so much grief for the management they will not know whish way to turn and we will then be in control with all the backing of the Hong Kong labour laws!
Vote NO lets go back to RP04, let them know whos boss comrades.
Work Force
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: HKG
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe we could get that wrong!
You know what I mean though. We are all well informed don't worry.
Also lots of us have registered our protest by not joining the AOA (me included)! The effect of that will start to dribble through soon too.
We will prevail!
You know what I mean though. We are all well informed don't worry.
Also lots of us have registered our protest by not joining the AOA (me included)! The effect of that will start to dribble through soon too.
We will prevail!