RP07 Revote?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here and There
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP07 Revote?
Is anyone else perplexed as to why we are voting on this subject again?
We voted no. The GC then decided to try and re-negotiate a better deal with the company which never worked. Surely that means that we accept the original vote and return to the fallback agreement.
How foolish will we look if this gets through the second time when effectively nothing has changed from the first vote?
I get the idea ST is trying very hard to push this thing through.
Why? We have already spoken!
W2
We voted no. The GC then decided to try and re-negotiate a better deal with the company which never worked. Surely that means that we accept the original vote and return to the fallback agreement.
How foolish will we look if this gets through the second time when effectively nothing has changed from the first vote?
I get the idea ST is trying very hard to push this thing through.
Why? We have already spoken!W2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the fence on this one. 
I voted for RP07 and was hoping for a improvement when it failed. Obviously the company thinks supply and demand is on their side.
Me thinks the fallback will win again!
They (CX) gambled and will fail on this one I think.
I voted for RP07 and was hoping for a improvement when it failed. Obviously the company thinks supply and demand is on their side.
Me thinks the fallback will win again!
They (CX) gambled and will fail on this one I think.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's simple.
Vote "Against" Revised Company Proposal
Vote "Against" Original RP07
The revised company proposal is so bad it makes RP07 look ok. Why? CX desperately wants RP07. This is their bluffed attempt to get us to revote yes on RP07. They are not even prepared to meet us half way in making a decent offer. The revised company proposal is a complete slap in the face to the Pilot body. It demonstrates their total lack of interest in negotiations.
It is all take take take by the company and no give...
The pendulum is swinging in favour of the pilot body. Crewing levels are short, pilots are leaving yet the Jets are arriving. When you read all the company propoganda in the press it is all about Growth, Expansion, more Jets etc etc.
What we want is simple; Real negotiations dealing with real issues such a Salary and employment conditions. HKG is not going to get any cheaper to live in. Look at all the recent information regarding UPS, Fedex and even Virgin Atlantic payscales.
Do we really think CX is going to just roll over and give us a payrise when we have nothing to bargain with. It is time to stand strong and not give away all our bargaining chips especially when the company is so desperate for RP07.
The revised company proposal is a clear indication of what the company is prepared to give us, NOTHING!
What does CX want? They want RP07.
What do CX pilots want? We want the Fallback Position.
Lets return to the Fallback Position.
Vote "Against" Revised Company Proposal
Vote "Against" Original RP07
The revised company proposal is so bad it makes RP07 look ok. Why? CX desperately wants RP07. This is their bluffed attempt to get us to revote yes on RP07. They are not even prepared to meet us half way in making a decent offer. The revised company proposal is a complete slap in the face to the Pilot body. It demonstrates their total lack of interest in negotiations.
It is all take take take by the company and no give...
The pendulum is swinging in favour of the pilot body. Crewing levels are short, pilots are leaving yet the Jets are arriving. When you read all the company propoganda in the press it is all about Growth, Expansion, more Jets etc etc.
What we want is simple; Real negotiations dealing with real issues such a Salary and employment conditions. HKG is not going to get any cheaper to live in. Look at all the recent information regarding UPS, Fedex and even Virgin Atlantic payscales.
Do we really think CX is going to just roll over and give us a payrise when we have nothing to bargain with. It is time to stand strong and not give away all our bargaining chips especially when the company is so desperate for RP07.
The revised company proposal is a clear indication of what the company is prepared to give us, NOTHING!
What does CX want? They want RP07.
What do CX pilots want? We want the Fallback Position.
Lets return to the Fallback Position.
Last edited by Harbour Dweller; 5th Jan 2007 at 11:41.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hkg
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the political significance of a 'No to RP07' vote but we will have to live with the result. Will the fallback position (as interpreted by the company in response to our vote) give us a better lifestyle than RP07?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will be voting it down on principle. I'm still pissed that they even thought of proposing a pay cut in this day and age when CX is achieving record profits and numerous awards.
As has been said before, lets discuss pay and overall improvement in our package, then I'll discuss better productivity for you so you can keep getting your record profits and big bonuses.
VOTE FALL-BACK ONLY!!!
Sqwak7700,
"anything the company does not want implemented must be for a good reason"
I suspect that if they had wanted it implemented they would have offered real improvements in the Mark2 version. As they haven't it seems that CX are happy to go to the fallback and expect to go to FTL's in a few years.
I've never watched lemmings before!!
"anything the company does not want implemented must be for a good reason"
I suspect that if they had wanted it implemented they would have offered real improvements in the Mark2 version. As they haven't it seems that CX are happy to go to the fallback and expect to go to FTL's in a few years.
I've never watched lemmings before!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: America Baby! Yeah!
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harbour Dweller, are you even in the union, mate? How does one vote "yes" for the fallback? That's not an option. One can only vote "no" against the RP07 versions if he or she prefers the fall back. If your had access to the motions you'd know this, no?
Forgive me, but I'm somewhat tired of non-union folks spouting off about what should be done whilst providing no tangible support...
If you are in the union, my apologies
Forgive me, but I'm somewhat tired of non-union folks spouting off about what should be done whilst providing no tangible support...
If you are in the union, my apologies
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wombatatico,
Your apology is accepted.
You are quiet correct though in your thoughts. After reading the Unions lastest update today I have edited my post to reflect their voting options.
Your apology is accepted.
You are quiet correct though in your thoughts. After reading the Unions lastest update today I have edited my post to reflect their voting options.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harbour Dweller,
I understand your cynicism over this 'revote'. BUT, ST et al are working for you, NOT against you.
Just so its clear...look at AFTLS...that is the fallback position 4 years from now. There are no RPs 4 years from now without an agreement...do you get it!? So NO 5-4-3, no monthly limits other than AFTLS...100hrs in 28 days, 900hrs in a year. Also, just so we are clear...700hrs only applies to a few people. That 700hrs are NOT the credit hrs we are currently used to. 700hrs on the 400/340 is equivalent to about 820+ stick hrs...remember the 2hr loading per ULR.
This issue has been ongoing since 1996...are RPs 'policy' or 'contractual'? RP07, whilst not being the best ever rostering policy, at least enshrines protections contractually. The fallback position is simply us saying that 'rostering practices' are company policy...ie subject to unilateral change by CX.
I have been waiting for the pendulum to swing for 14 years...will it be soon???? And guess what, CX can roster us without RP07...just remember we only have to be rostered for minimum G days and I think very few pilots actually only get the minimum G/O days.
I wish RP07 was better...I am still angry about no payrises. But voting NO on this is 'cutting off my nose to spite my face'. If that is what everyone wants, so be it. But just so we are clear...57% of people that voted wanted RP07 last time. A significant portion of 'no' voters have expressed their reasons for voting No last time...protest/better deal/want fall back. If 34% of voting members(or 51% of the total membership) want the fallback then we will have it and you can be happy being in the MINORITY that dictated policy for the majority. I am voting YES...not because I am impressed with RP07 but because after 14years here I want as much in my contract as I can get. I am happy to accept the outcome whatever it is...please just make sure it is an INFORMED vote, not a protest vote!
I understand your cynicism over this 'revote'. BUT, ST et al are working for you, NOT against you.
Just so its clear...look at AFTLS...that is the fallback position 4 years from now. There are no RPs 4 years from now without an agreement...do you get it!? So NO 5-4-3, no monthly limits other than AFTLS...100hrs in 28 days, 900hrs in a year. Also, just so we are clear...700hrs only applies to a few people. That 700hrs are NOT the credit hrs we are currently used to. 700hrs on the 400/340 is equivalent to about 820+ stick hrs...remember the 2hr loading per ULR.
This issue has been ongoing since 1996...are RPs 'policy' or 'contractual'? RP07, whilst not being the best ever rostering policy, at least enshrines protections contractually. The fallback position is simply us saying that 'rostering practices' are company policy...ie subject to unilateral change by CX.
I have been waiting for the pendulum to swing for 14 years...will it be soon???? And guess what, CX can roster us without RP07...just remember we only have to be rostered for minimum G days and I think very few pilots actually only get the minimum G/O days.
I wish RP07 was better...I am still angry about no payrises. But voting NO on this is 'cutting off my nose to spite my face'. If that is what everyone wants, so be it. But just so we are clear...57% of people that voted wanted RP07 last time. A significant portion of 'no' voters have expressed their reasons for voting No last time...protest/better deal/want fall back. If 34% of voting members(or 51% of the total membership) want the fallback then we will have it and you can be happy being in the MINORITY that dictated policy for the majority. I am voting YES...not because I am impressed with RP07 but because after 14years here I want as much in my contract as I can get. I am happy to accept the outcome whatever it is...please just make sure it is an INFORMED vote, not a protest vote!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC, you seem pretty well versed on the topic. Good to see an informative post explaining the details.
Are you able to explain, or give a timeline on how we ended up in such a poor negotiating position. Perhaps after the MG case was won might be a good place to start, and work on from there?
Are you able to explain, or give a timeline on how we ended up in such a poor negotiating position. Perhaps after the MG case was won might be a good place to start, and work on from there?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having pretty much rationalised the fact that I do not want the falback, I too have voted FOR the original proposal. It is less than perfect and far from what I consider to be ideal, but it's a lot better than the alternative...I remember those days well - endless reserves, gross intimidation and overtime paying stuffall.
No thanks, I'll take the (original) offer.
No thanks, I'll take the (original) offer.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having pretty much rationalised the fact that I do not want the falback, I too have voted FOR the original proposal. It is less than perfect and far from what I consider to be ideal, but it's a lot better than the alternative...I remember those days well - endless reserves, gross intimidation and overtime paying stuffall.
No thanks, I'll take the (original) offer.
No thanks, I'll take the (original) offer.
that the company would be so reluctant to give.No...I'm on the fence for now. Maybe in the next 3 weeks I'll cool down and vote for the original but right now I'm too
to vote anything other than no...so I'll defer my vote for a couple more weeks. 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPdude
I was the same last time. I was going to vote NO cause I was angry. I ended up voting Yes as I thought fallback hurts me more than it hurts CX!
jtr
I am not sure of the timeline as I wasnt on GC and was just gettting on with life...but...MAG won his case. Then we had RP04 which effectively bypassed the win(my layman's terms!). Apparently we cannot use his case...we have to start a new one. Not sure why but thats what the legal types say.
So if we end up with either version of RP07 we have CONTRACTUAL protection in the future(albeit, not the best RPs ever, but better than what we had from 1994-2001). If both votes fail, then there are 3 ways out of fallback position: 1 we come to another agreement with CX(RP08/09 etc); 2 we take them to court and find out the answer to the 1996 question...are RPs policy or contractual (this court case has to be started from scratch); 3 neither side agrees to anything, the court case is ongoing and in 4 years our RPs become AFTLS only!
It isn't the end of the world if we end up in the fallback, but it does leave us in rostering limbo. I have heard that MAG has said that fallback was just put in there for the sake of having an alternative. It was never seriously contemplated as an option.
Like many here I don't think RP07 is that great...I have had my best and WORST rosters under RP04. But, in my opinion, it is better than the alternative...non contractual RPs.
The important thing is that everyone vote, even if it is to abstain. I do respect that there are different views on this issue. Its good to get all the pros and cons out there so we can all make informed decisions. I personally don't believe it will bother CX if we go to fallback.
Hey Titan 404...whats your view on this...I can't remember if we talked about it when we flew together.
I was the same last time. I was going to vote NO cause I was angry. I ended up voting Yes as I thought fallback hurts me more than it hurts CX!
jtr
I am not sure of the timeline as I wasnt on GC and was just gettting on with life...but...MAG won his case. Then we had RP04 which effectively bypassed the win(my layman's terms!). Apparently we cannot use his case...we have to start a new one. Not sure why but thats what the legal types say.
So if we end up with either version of RP07 we have CONTRACTUAL protection in the future(albeit, not the best RPs ever, but better than what we had from 1994-2001). If both votes fail, then there are 3 ways out of fallback position: 1 we come to another agreement with CX(RP08/09 etc); 2 we take them to court and find out the answer to the 1996 question...are RPs policy or contractual (this court case has to be started from scratch); 3 neither side agrees to anything, the court case is ongoing and in 4 years our RPs become AFTLS only!
It isn't the end of the world if we end up in the fallback, but it does leave us in rostering limbo. I have heard that MAG has said that fallback was just put in there for the sake of having an alternative. It was never seriously contemplated as an option.
Like many here I don't think RP07 is that great...I have had my best and WORST rosters under RP04. But, in my opinion, it is better than the alternative...non contractual RPs.
The important thing is that everyone vote, even if it is to abstain. I do respect that there are different views on this issue. Its good to get all the pros and cons out there so we can all make informed decisions. I personally don't believe it will bother CX if we go to fallback.
Hey Titan 404...whats your view on this...I can't remember if we talked about it when we flew together.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to worry, CX know we are fools. Hence the revised agreement.
I can’t see the fallback coming. Me thinks the pilots will be scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback position and vote for the original RP07. Playing into the companies hand yet again. Seems the DFO knows us more than we know ourselves.
I am happy to go back to the fallback , much can happen in 4 years. But then again, it’s the boogyman thing.
If the fallback is in, keep negotiating until something is agreeable to both parties. I guess we will see at the end of the month. Four years is a long time. Much needs to be done to grow and expand the airline in that time.
Just remember, the company is expanding and will be opening new routes and new destinations. The flying you have now at your base/or not will not be the flying you have in the future. There will be more shuttles in both Europe and North America on both the Freighters and the Passenger Fleets. I believe the freighters will be merged in the the next couple of years and volunteering for the Freighter will be gone. Any Freighter Pilots in the know about crewing levels?
London-New York will eventually happen and how will that affect your roster in the coming years on both sides of the Atlantic?
From my experience, think of absolutely the worst roster you can have and apply it to RP07. Will you have the protection? Will you be doing more ULH or more shuttles with less time off. Have a think about it. Do you commute? There will be more reserve on a base to relieve the 744 HKG pilots and other ULH fleets (340/777ER’s).
There will be more regional night flights due to slots restrictions, do you want to be called out off a 12 hour reserve to do a 11 hour duty through the middle of the night? Does RP07 have that protection?
However it goes, we will all have to live with it now and in the future, whatever it brings.
I think the AOA and the Company should sit down and have a more meaningful discussion about the whole COS. We are killing ourselves negotiating bit by bit in the hope of a pay rise.
A payrise is not going to happen. Ask yourself why? Why will the company give you a payrise? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Get real. It is known as the “Black Heart of Asia” for a reason. The DFO already said your yearly increments is your annual pay rise. Get used to it.
I can’t see the fallback coming. Me thinks the pilots will be scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback position and vote for the original RP07. Playing into the companies hand yet again. Seems the DFO knows us more than we know ourselves.
I am happy to go back to the fallback , much can happen in 4 years. But then again, it’s the boogyman thing.
If the fallback is in, keep negotiating until something is agreeable to both parties. I guess we will see at the end of the month. Four years is a long time. Much needs to be done to grow and expand the airline in that time.
Just remember, the company is expanding and will be opening new routes and new destinations. The flying you have now at your base/or not will not be the flying you have in the future. There will be more shuttles in both Europe and North America on both the Freighters and the Passenger Fleets. I believe the freighters will be merged in the the next couple of years and volunteering for the Freighter will be gone. Any Freighter Pilots in the know about crewing levels?
London-New York will eventually happen and how will that affect your roster in the coming years on both sides of the Atlantic?
From my experience, think of absolutely the worst roster you can have and apply it to RP07. Will you have the protection? Will you be doing more ULH or more shuttles with less time off. Have a think about it. Do you commute? There will be more reserve on a base to relieve the 744 HKG pilots and other ULH fleets (340/777ER’s).
There will be more regional night flights due to slots restrictions, do you want to be called out off a 12 hour reserve to do a 11 hour duty through the middle of the night? Does RP07 have that protection?
However it goes, we will all have to live with it now and in the future, whatever it brings.
I think the AOA and the Company should sit down and have a more meaningful discussion about the whole COS. We are killing ourselves negotiating bit by bit in the hope of a pay rise.
A payrise is not going to happen. Ask yourself why? Why will the company give you a payrise? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Get real. It is known as the “Black Heart of Asia” for a reason. The DFO already said your yearly increments is your annual pay rise. Get used to it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure of the timeline as I wasnt on GC and was just gettting on with life...but...MAG won his case. Then we had RP04 which effectively bypassed the win(my layman's terms!). Apparently we cannot use his case...we have to start a new one. Not sure why but thats what the legal types say.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: "HARD" TO TELL.....
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR BLOGGS...
Very well said!!!I'm happy to know that there are at least some other guys out there,who's got the balls...
As for the rest of the comments here: what a bunch a f@#&*@g idiots...
Slapfaan by day...slapfaan by night...
Very well said!!!I'm happy to know that there are at least some other guys out there,who's got the balls...
As for the rest of the comments here: what a bunch a f@#&*@g idiots...
Slapfaan by day...slapfaan by night...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here and There
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big selling point for RP07 is that it will end up in the COS. To be honest I'm not sure that that makes very much difference. Please tell me I'm wrong but this is Hong Kong - when the company feels like they need to change your COS they will.
On the other hand this is a time of expansion and dare I say it - the beginning of a pilot shortage. Rostering the Fallback will surely slow the expansion plans which the company obviously doesn't want. NR's has said that they don't mind which RP they have to roster but my guess is that was a pretty bad attempt at a bluff. They want to roster the system that is in line with their plans ie. RP07
We are giving everything away chasing the dangling carrot that is a payrise. That doesn't seem like the way to go.
W2
On the other hand this is a time of expansion and dare I say it - the beginning of a pilot shortage. Rostering the Fallback will surely slow the expansion plans which the company obviously doesn't want. NR's has said that they don't mind which RP they have to roster but my guess is that was a pretty bad attempt at a bluff. They want to roster the system that is in line with their plans ie. RP07
We are giving everything away chasing the dangling carrot that is a payrise. That doesn't seem like the way to go.
W2