Here it comes...

[wombatatico]

Age 65 effective immediately (or perhaps Jan 1st, 2008).

For folks like myself, who've been with CX for less than seven years, this will creat significant delays in regards to career progression. I believe a 3.5 year delay is a best case scenerio, longer if cyclical slow-downs or other unforeseable events occur.

By-pass pay will be paid as per COS 99. This fact will help relieve some of the pain. However, I'm not sure which pain is worse, the loss of income or dealing with the Cathay training system as an FO for 11+ years. But I digress...

By-pass pay... Great. But listen up folks, there's a great big gotcha. If you are on a base or go onto a base, you'll be forced to work under COS 08.

Any guess as to how much by-pass pay there is in COS 08? Anyone?

Exactly...

[Loopdeloop]

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. The last people who the company are going to be able to force a new CoS onto are the basees. Didn't GC recently prove that UK based pilots are protected by UK labour law?

[wombatatico]

I told you so...

From the AOA update:

Command Bypass Pay
Command bypass pay, for Captains working beyond 55, will be available to any junior Officer remaining on CoS 99.

What the news letter doesn't tell you is that if you transfer to a base, you resign from COS 99 and then sign onto COS 08. Hence, no bypass pay!

Have fun storming the castle boys, 'cuz I'm outta here

[wombatatico]

And for those that didn't believe me...

From Kim Jung Phil:

All Based Officers will automatically transfer to CoS '08 in the future if they are working in a Base Area that transfers to "on shore" status.

-Care to tell me what Base Areas will not transfer to "on shore" status? That's right, they all will eventually.

This fact is by far the most significant item to come out of the negotiation. I simply cannot believe the association is allowing this to be put forth with their endorsement. Yes, as a due paying member, I sincerely appreciate the CG's time and efforts. However, I seriously have to question their moral courage due to the fact that they're endorsing this. For non-AOA members, please spare the cynical comments.

This is absolutely aweful!

[Numero Crunchero]

Why vote for it?

Let me be devil's advocate for a moment. The reason why this deal may be endorsed or voted for is that it helps maintain AOA input into certain decisions affecting the majority of our members. A payrise is a payrise. Why reject money offered just because it wasn't what you were expecting or feel you are worth? Better to have worked with CX in implementing inevitable actions (such as DEFO and RA65) so that, as much as possible, we can ameliorate the damage to career earnings.

There was and is a lot of effort going in on your behalf. Some GC members are more pragmatic than others and as much as they don't like the deal they think that the alternative of rejecting it is not in the membership's best interests. I have true respect and understanding for those on the GC that hold opposite views to me. It was the same in 2001. Thats democracy for you.

I am less pragmatic than my colleagues I guess!

[Glass Half Empty]

when can we expect an endorsement decision or not?

[junior_man]

umm, it is a paycut in the US, not a pay rise

[ACMS]

Numero: you know as well as I do this wont even come close to getting over the line, so don't even bother to recommend it to us for a vote. You are wasting my time.