RP07 Revote?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: America Baby! Yeah!
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spongebob
Firstly, how does voting in RP07 reduce our CoS...it actually takes out some gray area issues and firmly puts them INTO our CoS.
And who is this management type you allude to...not the guy posting as "management" I hope...that is very tongue in cheek.
I agree that if we all got together and acted collectively things would improve...that worked in 2001 until july anyway. This is simply a vote on RP07, not on our salary campaign. With the tighter rostering you envisage, they won't be able to work us as hard(without recompense) in RP07 like they can in the aftermath of the fallback. SO if things are going to get busy I hope we are smart enough to vote RP07 to protect ourselves.
Firstly, how does voting in RP07 reduce our CoS...it actually takes out some gray area issues and firmly puts them INTO our CoS.
And who is this management type you allude to...not the guy posting as "management" I hope...that is very tongue in cheek.
I agree that if we all got together and acted collectively things would improve...that worked in 2001 until july anyway. This is simply a vote on RP07, not on our salary campaign. With the tighter rostering you envisage, they won't be able to work us as hard(without recompense) in RP07 like they can in the aftermath of the fallback. SO if things are going to get busy I hope we are smart enough to vote RP07 to protect ourselves.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC:
You and I have been around a long time. You know our COS is not worth the paper it is written on. So to have it in our COS means nothing.
We are supposed to have a D&G procedure in our COS. How many times have it been followed? Does peanut throwing warrant a D&G?
Two pilots just got fired over some housing fiasco. They got one letter stating they were fired. Then underneath the first letter were two more letters. The 2nd letter was his first appeal with the decision still to be terminated. The 3rd letter was his second appeal already written out with the same decision. They got all the letters at one time.
The Conditions of Service at Cathay Pacific is worth Sh!tt
Like I said before, it will get passed because the pilots of CX are scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback. The pilots don’t want to fight for their conditions. We all know RP07 is not the best but are scared of what lurks.
This will pass, not on its merits but on the unknown. Don’t want to hear of ANYONE and I mean ANYONE complain about their roster and how hard they were done by. I want to see a big smile on the 15th of every month even though you are work stacked before your leave, etc etc.
A crap deal in our COS is still a crap deal.
BTW, CX has always worked in a “GREY” area. It is open to THEIR interpretation. You should know this.
Also want to see a big smile on the 26th of each month. Nothing is going to happen in that department either.
You and I have been around a long time. You know our COS is not worth the paper it is written on. So to have it in our COS means nothing.
We are supposed to have a D&G procedure in our COS. How many times have it been followed? Does peanut throwing warrant a D&G?
Two pilots just got fired over some housing fiasco. They got one letter stating they were fired. Then underneath the first letter were two more letters. The 2nd letter was his first appeal with the decision still to be terminated. The 3rd letter was his second appeal already written out with the same decision. They got all the letters at one time.
The Conditions of Service at Cathay Pacific is worth Sh!tt
Like I said before, it will get passed because the pilots of CX are scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback. The pilots don’t want to fight for their conditions. We all know RP07 is not the best but are scared of what lurks.
This will pass, not on its merits but on the unknown. Don’t want to hear of ANYONE and I mean ANYONE complain about their roster and how hard they were done by. I want to see a big smile on the 15th of every month even though you are work stacked before your leave, etc etc.
A crap deal in our COS is still a crap deal.
BTW, CX has always worked in a “GREY” area. It is open to THEIR interpretation. You should know this.
Also want to see a big smile on the 26th of each month. Nothing is going to happen in that department either.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bloggs
Selfishly, I would like RP07 as it suits me having those jokers and some lifestyle rostering. But if it gets voted down I am happy to live with the consequences. I would like to see the majority vote one way or the other, like the DEFO vote.
I am not scared of the consequences if we go to fallback. I survived the rostering of RP94 on the Tristar in mid 90s...terrible rostering.
But, I don't see the point in making rostering a legal battle. If we end up in fallback and go to court and win, we will end up with RPs in our contract...exactly what voting for RP07 will do, but obviously different RPs(RP94).
If I thought that fallback would put them under pressure to improve other conditions, I would vote NO. I have not been given any logical reason for assuming that so I am pragmatically voting YES. This is a vote on rostering, not on fairness of our contract, pay issues etc.
Selfishly, I would like RP07 as it suits me having those jokers and some lifestyle rostering. But if it gets voted down I am happy to live with the consequences. I would like to see the majority vote one way or the other, like the DEFO vote.
I am not scared of the consequences if we go to fallback. I survived the rostering of RP94 on the Tristar in mid 90s...terrible rostering.
But, I don't see the point in making rostering a legal battle. If we end up in fallback and go to court and win, we will end up with RPs in our contract...exactly what voting for RP07 will do, but obviously different RPs(RP94).
If I thought that fallback would put them under pressure to improve other conditions, I would vote NO. I have not been given any logical reason for assuming that so I am pragmatically voting YES. This is a vote on rostering, not on fairness of our contract, pay issues etc.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've worked under three different RP's here and the one I like the best is the current one - at least we get some degree of control over trips and days off. It's not perfect but what is? I think it's better than the fallback and what we had under RP94 so on a simple "vote for what you want" principle it'll get my vote.
KISS!
KISS!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Bloggs put it very well. The CX pilot group is scared of what lurks behind the corner. They are scared now, and will be scared with every proposal management puts out.....and considering they will all be sh#t, not the position one would hope for. How spineless can we be, the ONLY strength we have is in our NUMBERS. So many speak of wanting an increase in pay......why would CX give ANYTHING to us when they know the pilot group will crumble at the first sign of resistance. They will continue to hand down and destroy what is left of the Cos until this pilot group realizes that this behavior is unacceptable. This company is too profitable for Swire to let it just dissolve, and that's what would happen if ALL of the pilots stood as one and started rejecting offers that were not in our best interests. They cannot fire us as a whole. And if one goes down....then they need to know....that the rest of us will follow. Voting YES for RP07 is a mistake because it lets them once again divide the issues. It is something THEY obviously want, and we need these rostering practices as a bargaining tool for more important pieces of the cake. If by some miracle, management does decide to open talks about pay, what will we have to bargain with??? What incentive would they have to pay us more??? Here's to not being so spineless.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are looking for better rostering and more control over you roster, I don’t think RP07 is it. Over 95% of our operations are scheduled. Why can’t I request/bid a flight/days off with some degree of accuracy? Sorry, I just scared the sh!tt out of everyone with the “Bid” work. Why do I have to request jokers 80 some days in advance.
We know we are on annual productive hours, so why don’t we know how many hours a month we should be bidding/requesting. Is it a big secret that scheduling must hold onto? Why does scheduling have to build our roster? If we are capable of flying a Multi-Million dollars aircraft, I think were are capable of building our own roster to the required 84 hours or the 54 hours with a weeks reserve or whatever the hours that Scheduling require. Give us the numbers and let us do it. Is it that hard? Are they are always undermanned.
Guess that will never happen as we will accept a crappy deal because not many pilots actually know what is out there or don’t think it can ever happen. Well one thing for sure “If you don’t try, it will not happen”. Where would we be at now if the Wright Brothers took that attitude?
Vote it down and let’s get on with some serious negotiations with regard to rostering. We will all have an incentive to get a proper deal when we have the fallback in force. We could be only into the fallback for a couple of months with a deal that works for both parties. Don’t think it is a moon shot with rostering.
If I were the DFO, I would give you absolutely “NOTHING”. Why? The pilots will sign a deal that works for the company and very little for the pilots. So why give them something when you don’t have to. Negotiations 101.
Like I said, when it is all over and done with, No complaining on the 15th and no complaining on the 26th because nothing is going to improve.
Why have we given so much and got absolutely nothing in return. No wonder we get nothing with this pilot force and their mentality.
We know we are on annual productive hours, so why don’t we know how many hours a month we should be bidding/requesting. Is it a big secret that scheduling must hold onto? Why does scheduling have to build our roster? If we are capable of flying a Multi-Million dollars aircraft, I think were are capable of building our own roster to the required 84 hours or the 54 hours with a weeks reserve or whatever the hours that Scheduling require. Give us the numbers and let us do it. Is it that hard? Are they are always undermanned.
Guess that will never happen as we will accept a crappy deal because not many pilots actually know what is out there or don’t think it can ever happen. Well one thing for sure “If you don’t try, it will not happen”. Where would we be at now if the Wright Brothers took that attitude?
Vote it down and let’s get on with some serious negotiations with regard to rostering. We will all have an incentive to get a proper deal when we have the fallback in force. We could be only into the fallback for a couple of months with a deal that works for both parties. Don’t think it is a moon shot with rostering.
If I were the DFO, I would give you absolutely “NOTHING”. Why? The pilots will sign a deal that works for the company and very little for the pilots. So why give them something when you don’t have to. Negotiations 101.
Like I said, when it is all over and done with, No complaining on the 15th and no complaining on the 26th because nothing is going to improve.
Why have we given so much and got absolutely nothing in return. No wonder we get nothing with this pilot force and their mentality.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a "crappy deal" by any stretch of the imagination. It's better than any deals I've worked under before here - I now actually get to arrange days off for weddings/birthdays etc and know that I'll get them off.
Why would we only be working under the fallback for a couple of months? The company are quite happy to roster to the fallback - they gain flexibility by not having to deal with any requests but lose flexibility by re-introducing 5-4-3 for those that select it. Do nothing for 4 years then it's AFTLs.
Of course there's that court case as well. They may win and get AFTLs sooner, or we may win and get......RP94 (possibly, or whatever the judge thinks is appropriate)
Is RP94 much better than RP07?
No
Why would we only be working under the fallback for a couple of months? The company are quite happy to roster to the fallback - they gain flexibility by not having to deal with any requests but lose flexibility by re-introducing 5-4-3 for those that select it. Do nothing for 4 years then it's AFTLs.
Of course there's that court case as well. They may win and get AFTLs sooner, or we may win and get......RP94 (possibly, or whatever the judge thinks is appropriate)
Is RP94 much better than RP07?
No
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a "crappy deal" by any stretch of the imagination. It's better than any deals I've worked under before here - I now actually get to arrange days off for weddings/birthdays etc and know that I'll get them off.
Why would we only be working under the fallback for a couple of months? The company are quite happy to roster to the fallback - they gain flexibility by not having to deal with any requests but lose flexibility by re-introducing 5-4-3 for those that select it. Do nothing for 4 years then it's AFTLs.
Of course there's that court case as well. They may win and get AFTLs sooner, or we may win and get......RP94 (possibly, or whatever the judge thinks is appropriate)
Is RP94 much better than RP07?
No
Why would we only be working under the fallback for a couple of months? The company are quite happy to roster to the fallback - they gain flexibility by not having to deal with any requests but lose flexibility by re-introducing 5-4-3 for those that select it. Do nothing for 4 years then it's AFTLs.
Of course there's that court case as well. They may win and get AFTLs sooner, or we may win and get......RP94 (possibly, or whatever the judge thinks is appropriate)
Is RP94 much better than RP07?
No
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a scheduler but if 95% of our operations are scheduled, why 80 days to put in day off requests? I realize is it hard work for the schedules to put our requests into the computer, sorry we do that for them if it is a seamless system, OR better yet, why don’t we do it for them? We have our own IT department and we have some smart computer blokes paying union dues. What could happen if we got together?
Like I said before, not many know what is out there if you are comparing to EK, CI and GF.
I guess we will never know what could be achieved. We gave away 5 4 3 and reserve for the ability to request days off, 80 days in advance, 3- 4 times a year. I think we won that one. If you look hard at it, did you need to give that away to really request days off? No but the company wanted it gone.
“The company is quite happy to roster into the fallback”. Who made that statement, The Company? If you were negotiating, would you not say that even if you could not or chose not or simply don’t want to. One must learn to read between the lines when negotiating.
Does not help pilots doing W patterns or being called out off a 12 hours reserve to do a 12 hour duty with possibly two pilots, but, I can request those days off for the wedding, if you live that long. The days off are more important that safety I suppose.
This company is all about taking and the pilots are all about giving. If you keep giving the company with keep taking. When they want something, scare the pilots into giving. Don’t expect your roster to get better because CX will exploit all the deficiencies of any agreement, including this one.
Don’t think you realize all the new routes and increased services CX will be starting in the coming years. When they are undermanned your lifestyles request will be the last thing on their agenda and that will be for a long time. Revenue comes first at the expense of others including Safety.
Remember, money comes first and foremost for this lot. If you don’t have any protections like 543 or FDP starts on reserve, you will be rostered for some interesting patterns to say the least. You will get more fatigued and eventually call in sick and that will only perpetuate the problem. Any the famous words of all crew controller “It is legal” or “Are you refusing a duty”.
It’s not about now, look ahead. How many aircraft are we going to have in 3-5 years, what kind of new routes, how can this agreement be exploited?
It’s all about fatigue protection. How many ASR’s can be contributed to tiredness or fatigue?
Then again, it could be me not seeing the forest for the trees.
Like I said before, not many know what is out there if you are comparing to EK, CI and GF.
I guess we will never know what could be achieved. We gave away 5 4 3 and reserve for the ability to request days off, 80 days in advance, 3- 4 times a year. I think we won that one. If you look hard at it, did you need to give that away to really request days off? No but the company wanted it gone.
“The company is quite happy to roster into the fallback”. Who made that statement, The Company? If you were negotiating, would you not say that even if you could not or chose not or simply don’t want to. One must learn to read between the lines when negotiating.
Does not help pilots doing W patterns or being called out off a 12 hours reserve to do a 12 hour duty with possibly two pilots, but, I can request those days off for the wedding, if you live that long. The days off are more important that safety I suppose.
This company is all about taking and the pilots are all about giving. If you keep giving the company with keep taking. When they want something, scare the pilots into giving. Don’t expect your roster to get better because CX will exploit all the deficiencies of any agreement, including this one.
Don’t think you realize all the new routes and increased services CX will be starting in the coming years. When they are undermanned your lifestyles request will be the last thing on their agenda and that will be for a long time. Revenue comes first at the expense of others including Safety.
Remember, money comes first and foremost for this lot. If you don’t have any protections like 543 or FDP starts on reserve, you will be rostered for some interesting patterns to say the least. You will get more fatigued and eventually call in sick and that will only perpetuate the problem. Any the famous words of all crew controller “It is legal” or “Are you refusing a duty”.
It’s not about now, look ahead. How many aircraft are we going to have in 3-5 years, what kind of new routes, how can this agreement be exploited?
It’s all about fatigue protection. How many ASR’s can be contributed to tiredness or fatigue?
Then again, it could be me not seeing the forest for the trees.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a scheduler but if 95% of our operations are scheduled, why 80 days to put in day off requests? I realize is it hard work for the schedules to put our requests into the computer, sorry we do that for them if it is a seamless system, OR better yet, why don’t we do it for them? We have our own IT department and we have some smart computer blokes paying union dues. What could happen if we got together?
Like I said before, not many know what is out there if you are comparing to EK, CI and GF.
I guess we will never know what could be achieved. We gave away 5 4 3 and reserve for the ability to request days off, 80 days in advance, 3- 4 times a year. I think we won that one. If you look hard at it, did you need to give that away to really request days off? No but the company wanted it gone.
“The company is quite happy to roster into the fallback”. Who made that statement, The Company? If you were negotiating, would you not say that even if you could not or chose not or simply don’t want to. One must learn to read between the lines when negotiating.
Does not help pilots doing W patterns or being called out off a 12 hours reserve to do a 12 hour duty with possibly two pilots, but, I can request those days off for the wedding, if you live that long. The days off are more important that safety I suppose.
This company is all about taking and the pilots are all about giving. If you keep giving the company with keep taking. When they want something, scare the pilots into giving. Don’t expect your roster to get better because CX will exploit all the deficiencies of any agreement, including this one.
Don’t think you realize all the new routes and increased services CX will be starting in the coming years. When they are undermanned your lifestyles request will be the last thing on their agenda and that will be for a long time. Revenue comes first at the expense of others including Safety.
Remember, money comes first and foremost for this lot. If you don’t have any protections like 543 or FDP starts on reserve, you will be rostered for some interesting patterns to say the least. You will get more fatigued and eventually call in sick and that will only perpetuate the problem. Any the famous words of all crew controller “It is legal” or “Are you refusing a duty”.
It’s not about now, look ahead. How many aircraft are we going to have in 3-5 years, what kind of new routes, how can this agreement be exploited?
It’s all about fatigue protection. How many ASR’s can be contributed to tiredness or fatigue?
Then again, it could be me not seeing the forest for the trees.
Like I said before, not many know what is out there if you are comparing to EK, CI and GF.
I guess we will never know what could be achieved. We gave away 5 4 3 and reserve for the ability to request days off, 80 days in advance, 3- 4 times a year. I think we won that one. If you look hard at it, did you need to give that away to really request days off? No but the company wanted it gone.
“The company is quite happy to roster into the fallback”. Who made that statement, The Company? If you were negotiating, would you not say that even if you could not or chose not or simply don’t want to. One must learn to read between the lines when negotiating.
Does not help pilots doing W patterns or being called out off a 12 hours reserve to do a 12 hour duty with possibly two pilots, but, I can request those days off for the wedding, if you live that long. The days off are more important that safety I suppose.
This company is all about taking and the pilots are all about giving. If you keep giving the company with keep taking. When they want something, scare the pilots into giving. Don’t expect your roster to get better because CX will exploit all the deficiencies of any agreement, including this one.
Don’t think you realize all the new routes and increased services CX will be starting in the coming years. When they are undermanned your lifestyles request will be the last thing on their agenda and that will be for a long time. Revenue comes first at the expense of others including Safety.
Remember, money comes first and foremost for this lot. If you don’t have any protections like 543 or FDP starts on reserve, you will be rostered for some interesting patterns to say the least. You will get more fatigued and eventually call in sick and that will only perpetuate the problem. Any the famous words of all crew controller “It is legal” or “Are you refusing a duty”.
It’s not about now, look ahead. How many aircraft are we going to have in 3-5 years, what kind of new routes, how can this agreement be exploited?
It’s all about fatigue protection. How many ASR’s can be contributed to tiredness or fatigue?
Then again, it could be me not seeing the forest for the trees.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bloggs
Who said "the company is quite happy to roster in the fallback"? The aoa rostering team, thats who. I know some of those guys and I trust their integrity and their intelligence to make that statement. I thought CX would have trouble rostering us 6hr reserves in the fallback. I have been assured by the aoa guys that it will not be a problem for CX. These guys look at the rosters every month...they have the JRC feedback as well. If you know something they don't please email the GC!
I don't know why people are getting emotive about this. Its really simple...do you want RP07 or do you want to take your chances on the fallback. What this has to do with collective bargaining, US bid style rostering and how much spine each pilot has is beyond me.
I wish you No voters would give me something to work with here...all I have been reading from you so far is emotive threats and doom and gloom. Please quantify it for me so my simple logical brain can decide to change my vote your way!
Who said "the company is quite happy to roster in the fallback"? The aoa rostering team, thats who. I know some of those guys and I trust their integrity and their intelligence to make that statement. I thought CX would have trouble rostering us 6hr reserves in the fallback. I have been assured by the aoa guys that it will not be a problem for CX. These guys look at the rosters every month...they have the JRC feedback as well. If you know something they don't please email the GC!
I don't know why people are getting emotive about this. Its really simple...do you want RP07 or do you want to take your chances on the fallback. What this has to do with collective bargaining, US bid style rostering and how much spine each pilot has is beyond me.
I wish you No voters would give me something to work with here...all I have been reading from you so far is emotive threats and doom and gloom. Please quantify it for me so my simple logical brain can decide to change my vote your way!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs,
Thanks for mentioning the two pilots fired recently, its a shame we can forget it so quickly. You are right their D&G, appeal, Final appeal was an absolute joke but you heard it first here there is about to be some major headlines on this one!, Standby
Just to show you how the company is sticking to your COS Mr Rhodes proudly anounced at a C & T meeting ( I was there) two weeks before JR's final appeal that he was fired. Natural Justice I dont think so!!
Thanks for mentioning the two pilots fired recently, its a shame we can forget it so quickly. You are right their D&G, appeal, Final appeal was an absolute joke but you heard it first here there is about to be some major headlines on this one!, Standby
Just to show you how the company is sticking to your COS Mr Rhodes proudly anounced at a C & T meeting ( I was there) two weeks before JR's final appeal that he was fired. Natural Justice I dont think so!!
Last edited by SOUTHPAC; 13th Jan 2007 at 10:57.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number cruncher,
Sorry about your new years resolution. I'm not sure what type of facts or reasoning your looking for, nor for what purpose you have in hearing them. It's not important to publish a report to show what the CX pilot group has GIVEN up over the past decade, because one word encompasses it all......EVERYTHING. This group has not maintained one thing that has been put before them. Maybe you're too close to tell the difference, but this group has no idea of what negotiating is all about. In the CX pilot handbook the only definition I find is....to accept what management proposes. So given your sarcastic remark....you are planning on voting YES to RP07.....and the what have you achieved??? A better roster for the time being? And when do you think management will come to the table to talk about long overdue, inflation adjusted pay raises? And what would be their objective of doing such a thing? To take away from the bottom line because you deserve it??? Maybe you shouldn't throw away your cards before the hand is dealt. Maybe it would be a sound idea to negotiate rosters and raises at the same time. Maybe we should educate our new pilots on the important issues that concern their futures. Maybe the union should come and introduce itself to new pilots to increase numbers and its stance against the company and their demands. I would imagine with a little marketing and some union leaders taking some time, numbers in the union would increase dramatically with new pilots. Maybe you should gain more knowledge of union matters from outside the AOA, to improve the AOA, because this union is pathetically ineffective. My whole point has been to work together as ONE, and as we ALL want an increase in PAY, why should we conclude an important piece of negotiations prior to even speaking about PAY. According to our chairman Chris Pratt, we are acquiring 43 aircraft over the next 3 years, and without any disposals, that will require a huge increase in pilots, and obviously their productivity given the downfalls in our CT systems with upgrades and movement. WHY should we make it easier for the company to roster us after spending (correct me if I'm completely off) nearly 10 years without an increase in pay. You're looking for hard facts and detailed research, but the disadvantages are painfully clear when you're not blinded by the bullsh*t.
cheers
Sorry about your new years resolution. I'm not sure what type of facts or reasoning your looking for, nor for what purpose you have in hearing them. It's not important to publish a report to show what the CX pilot group has GIVEN up over the past decade, because one word encompasses it all......EVERYTHING. This group has not maintained one thing that has been put before them. Maybe you're too close to tell the difference, but this group has no idea of what negotiating is all about. In the CX pilot handbook the only definition I find is....to accept what management proposes. So given your sarcastic remark....you are planning on voting YES to RP07.....and the what have you achieved??? A better roster for the time being? And when do you think management will come to the table to talk about long overdue, inflation adjusted pay raises? And what would be their objective of doing such a thing? To take away from the bottom line because you deserve it??? Maybe you shouldn't throw away your cards before the hand is dealt. Maybe it would be a sound idea to negotiate rosters and raises at the same time. Maybe we should educate our new pilots on the important issues that concern their futures. Maybe the union should come and introduce itself to new pilots to increase numbers and its stance against the company and their demands. I would imagine with a little marketing and some union leaders taking some time, numbers in the union would increase dramatically with new pilots. Maybe you should gain more knowledge of union matters from outside the AOA, to improve the AOA, because this union is pathetically ineffective. My whole point has been to work together as ONE, and as we ALL want an increase in PAY, why should we conclude an important piece of negotiations prior to even speaking about PAY. According to our chairman Chris Pratt, we are acquiring 43 aircraft over the next 3 years, and without any disposals, that will require a huge increase in pilots, and obviously their productivity given the downfalls in our CT systems with upgrades and movement. WHY should we make it easier for the company to roster us after spending (correct me if I'm completely off) nearly 10 years without an increase in pay. You're looking for hard facts and detailed research, but the disadvantages are painfully clear when you're not blinded by the bullsh*t.
cheers
Spongebob,
Yes, you're right, there are too many inaccuracies for me to bother with.
"Maybe the union should come and introduce itself to new pilots to increase numbers and its stance against the company and their demands. I would imagine with a little marketing and some union leaders taking some time, numbers in the union would increase dramatically with new pilots. Maybe you should gain more knowledge of union matters from outside the AOA, to improve the AOA, because this union is pathetically ineffective."
You'll have to keep imagining as you're obviously not prepared to be a member and put your money where your mouth is. IF you join you'll find out about many of the items you're wrong about.
Yes, you're right, there are too many inaccuracies for me to bother with.
"Maybe the union should come and introduce itself to new pilots to increase numbers and its stance against the company and their demands. I would imagine with a little marketing and some union leaders taking some time, numbers in the union would increase dramatically with new pilots. Maybe you should gain more knowledge of union matters from outside the AOA, to improve the AOA, because this union is pathetically ineffective."
You'll have to keep imagining as you're obviously not prepared to be a member and put your money where your mouth is. IF you join you'll find out about many of the items you're wrong about.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spongebob,
I like your sense of humour at least;-)
I just don't see the point in past anger affecting future decisions. You bring up lots of disparate but relevant issues. Union membership is down...but I see no excuse for not being a member today. So if people want to save 1.25% thats fine, but don't complain about me making decisions for them with my vote! I have been here for a while so have endured lots of changes and degradations of my CoS. But I just don't see how voting for RP07 is bad for me. Spongebob, what am I missing here? I will be putting 'policy' items into my CoS...how is that bad? If I vote no and go to court, at BEST I will end up with RP94 as my rostering practice, at worst AFTLS. So how is that a win?
I know there is this underlying belief that anything they offer must be bad for us, good for them. Did it ever occur to you that it might be good for both?
The facts I want are not about past injustices...I was on the GC a few years back and saw the injustices at close quarters..I want facts on what is bad about RP07. Not paranoia, not revenge or retribution....just the plain facts as to what is so wrong with Rp07 VS the fallback!
The premise for your no vote seems to be that RP07 is worth something to CX and by holding it back we can use it in negotiations about salary? Is that about right? I don't see that it does lead to productivity/cost savings for CX so I am voting yes from that viewpoint. If voting down RP07 would put them under pressure, I would vote No. I just don't see that it does!???
I like your sense of humour at least;-)
I just don't see the point in past anger affecting future decisions. You bring up lots of disparate but relevant issues. Union membership is down...but I see no excuse for not being a member today. So if people want to save 1.25% thats fine, but don't complain about me making decisions for them with my vote! I have been here for a while so have endured lots of changes and degradations of my CoS. But I just don't see how voting for RP07 is bad for me. Spongebob, what am I missing here? I will be putting 'policy' items into my CoS...how is that bad? If I vote no and go to court, at BEST I will end up with RP94 as my rostering practice, at worst AFTLS. So how is that a win?
I know there is this underlying belief that anything they offer must be bad for us, good for them. Did it ever occur to you that it might be good for both?
The facts I want are not about past injustices...I was on the GC a few years back and saw the injustices at close quarters..I want facts on what is bad about RP07. Not paranoia, not revenge or retribution....just the plain facts as to what is so wrong with Rp07 VS the fallback!
The premise for your no vote seems to be that RP07 is worth something to CX and by holding it back we can use it in negotiations about salary? Is that about right? I don't see that it does lead to productivity/cost savings for CX so I am voting yes from that viewpoint. If voting down RP07 would put them under pressure, I would vote No. I just don't see that it does!???
Last edited by Numero Crunchero; 13th Jan 2007 at 15:07. Reason: Single bit processor overloaded!