C.O.S 08 - You're kidding me
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Coast N.A.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enlightenment
B-Scaler,
What a bunch of cr##$. I was there. We as a group soundly voted down the idea of a second lower scale. Our GC sited examples of other airlines that had tried this. The GC sent out packages to people coming for interviews explaining the differences and suggesting it would be hard to live in HK on the B scale. Of course the compnany did what they wanted, and people, you for example, joined. Trust me we (A scale) didn't want a second scale and didn't want anyone to accept it, but people did. The big question then was do we allow B scale to be part of our association as some (many) viewed we were being undercut. Pilots were coming and offering to do my job for less. It was a very heated meeting with a resolution to allow B scale to join us in the AOA passing by a small margin. The eventual thought was we would all be better off if we could work TOGETHER. For the record I votged against that particular motion but I soon came to understand the benefit of working together to improve ALL of our lots.
There was no "lets screw the new guys to save ourselves" In fact it speaks to the integrity of many of the "A scalers" that we didn't view the new B scalers in a harsher light, given that the B scale was undercutting our positions.
Now lets all stop the infighting, it plays to CX's hand, and work together for once. There is nothing in this proposal for any of us that would justify voting for this. I could care less about age 60 or 65, I want a raise and I want my collegues, ALL my collegues to get a raise, with NO new CoS, and not tied to productivity.
Vote NO
What a bunch of cr##$. I was there. We as a group soundly voted down the idea of a second lower scale. Our GC sited examples of other airlines that had tried this. The GC sent out packages to people coming for interviews explaining the differences and suggesting it would be hard to live in HK on the B scale. Of course the compnany did what they wanted, and people, you for example, joined. Trust me we (A scale) didn't want a second scale and didn't want anyone to accept it, but people did. The big question then was do we allow B scale to be part of our association as some (many) viewed we were being undercut. Pilots were coming and offering to do my job for less. It was a very heated meeting with a resolution to allow B scale to join us in the AOA passing by a small margin. The eventual thought was we would all be better off if we could work TOGETHER. For the record I votged against that particular motion but I soon came to understand the benefit of working together to improve ALL of our lots.
There was no "lets screw the new guys to save ourselves" In fact it speaks to the integrity of many of the "A scalers" that we didn't view the new B scalers in a harsher light, given that the B scale was undercutting our positions.
Now lets all stop the infighting, it plays to CX's hand, and work together for once. There is nothing in this proposal for any of us that would justify voting for this. I could care less about age 60 or 65, I want a raise and I want my collegues, ALL my collegues to get a raise, with NO new CoS, and not tied to productivity.
Vote NO
Last edited by cxflyer; 13th Aug 2007 at 02:20. Reason: adding
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 - wathc yur speelin
I always assumed good spelling was a sign or intelligence - thats why I use small, easy to spell words;-)
Clarification
I thought you had to be on CoS08 to GO on a base after 1/1/08. I am not sure if that is true. I know if you are an SO going on a base out of seniority you go on CoS08 and UFO scales. But for FOs it may be possible to go on a base on CoS99. However, as soon as the basing company is started up you would have to go onto the new basing company terms which may or may not include bypass pay. I can state that it was the intent that no bypass pay would apply to based officers but then local legislation may result in a different outcome for CX.
What we did or did not do to prevent B scales is spilt milk. How we should have handled 1994, 1999, 2001, 49ers is all water under the bridge. The current deal is what we are looking at not how much better we could have handled things with 20:20 hindsight.
I think that A scalers not getting a payrise for over a decade, suffering 8-25% paycuts etc, have a legitmate grievance.
I think a B scaler joining 14 years ago and earning 20-30% less than me his entire career so far has a legitimate grievance.
I think LEPs not getting housing for 12-13 years and then only getting the base rate have a legitimate grievance. I think the low salaries and terrible roster disruptions give the freighter guys fair reason to complain. Most of all, I think that having your upgrades delayed due to circumstances completely beyond your control makes the gripes of FOs and SOs quite understandable.
Now how many of these issues have been caused by other parts of the pilot body? And how do we hope to gain from playing the "my grievance is bigger than your grievance" game?
We are all aggrieved to some extent. Focus your angst in the direction it should be focussed on.
I suggest you look at the vote from two perspectives; how does it affect me and how does it affect the pilot body; and then decide your vote. I personally prefer to focus on the latter as in the long run, if we all do that, we will all be better off.
If the deal is voted down, in my opinion RA65 and DEFO will be carried out regardless and probably mostly in their current forms. I believe this as I think that RA65 is legislatively driven not AOA driven. It costs a lot of money having senior CNs, senior FO, senior SOs. Every 55+ captain reduces training course requirements by 3-5 courses. So there is short term gain in training costs but extra increments and pay will wipe out training savings over 3-5years.
I would hazard the opinion that the payrises are likely to be imposed regardless of the vote outcome. I have no inside knowledge, just observing events for the last 15 years.
RA65 - you do realise you only benefit if you work more!? If life expectancy was 65 how valuable would you find the ability to work up to 8 nights a month until your ETD (Estimated Time of Dieing). A new joiner needs to work until his 58th birthday to recoup the career earnings he would have had on his 55th birthday, if he gets no bypass pay. If he gets full bypass pay as an FO/SO he will only have to work till his 56th birthday to recoup career losses - in NPV terms.
To keep it simple, you work from 1-3 years for free to recoup losses from RA65. I do want to make the point though that this is a consequence of legislative pressures to move to RA65, not some arbitrary decision by CX. If CX pay bypass pay, it will ameliorate the losses.
clear as mud.
Clarification
I thought you had to be on CoS08 to GO on a base after 1/1/08. I am not sure if that is true. I know if you are an SO going on a base out of seniority you go on CoS08 and UFO scales. But for FOs it may be possible to go on a base on CoS99. However, as soon as the basing company is started up you would have to go onto the new basing company terms which may or may not include bypass pay. I can state that it was the intent that no bypass pay would apply to based officers but then local legislation may result in a different outcome for CX.
What we did or did not do to prevent B scales is spilt milk. How we should have handled 1994, 1999, 2001, 49ers is all water under the bridge. The current deal is what we are looking at not how much better we could have handled things with 20:20 hindsight.
I think that A scalers not getting a payrise for over a decade, suffering 8-25% paycuts etc, have a legitmate grievance.
I think a B scaler joining 14 years ago and earning 20-30% less than me his entire career so far has a legitimate grievance.
I think LEPs not getting housing for 12-13 years and then only getting the base rate have a legitimate grievance. I think the low salaries and terrible roster disruptions give the freighter guys fair reason to complain. Most of all, I think that having your upgrades delayed due to circumstances completely beyond your control makes the gripes of FOs and SOs quite understandable.
Now how many of these issues have been caused by other parts of the pilot body? And how do we hope to gain from playing the "my grievance is bigger than your grievance" game?
We are all aggrieved to some extent. Focus your angst in the direction it should be focussed on.
I suggest you look at the vote from two perspectives; how does it affect me and how does it affect the pilot body; and then decide your vote. I personally prefer to focus on the latter as in the long run, if we all do that, we will all be better off.
If the deal is voted down, in my opinion RA65 and DEFO will be carried out regardless and probably mostly in their current forms. I believe this as I think that RA65 is legislatively driven not AOA driven. It costs a lot of money having senior CNs, senior FO, senior SOs. Every 55+ captain reduces training course requirements by 3-5 courses. So there is short term gain in training costs but extra increments and pay will wipe out training savings over 3-5years.
I would hazard the opinion that the payrises are likely to be imposed regardless of the vote outcome. I have no inside knowledge, just observing events for the last 15 years.
RA65 - you do realise you only benefit if you work more!? If life expectancy was 65 how valuable would you find the ability to work up to 8 nights a month until your ETD (Estimated Time of Dieing). A new joiner needs to work until his 58th birthday to recoup the career earnings he would have had on his 55th birthday, if he gets no bypass pay. If he gets full bypass pay as an FO/SO he will only have to work till his 56th birthday to recoup career losses - in NPV terms.
To keep it simple, you work from 1-3 years for free to recoup losses from RA65. I do want to make the point though that this is a consequence of legislative pressures to move to RA65, not some arbitrary decision by CX. If CX pay bypass pay, it will ameliorate the losses.
clear as mud.
Last edited by Numero Crunchero; 13th Aug 2007 at 04:27. Reason: Part of post missing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karma
You (we) all sold the 49’s out, this is your (our) karma, getting what you (we) deserve. Too bad you (we) did not stick together then, so karma will surely make that impossible now. At least some of their legal fight is still alive. Maybe if they win our karma and lot will change.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History Lesson
CXFlyer has given us a rather pointed history refresher. Given the facts, I think it is time to put the anti A Scale rhetoric to bed and focus on the issues at hand.
Good night.
Good night.
BUSYB:
call it whatever makes you feel better mate but at the end of the day your Pay is about 30% better, your P/Fund about 50% better etc etc. Call it "hickory dickory" scale if you like.
You're missing the point, we are not on "A-Scales" any more.
You accepted retirement age 55 when you joined. What part of "A scale finishes there" can't you accept.
The fact that you guys are falling over yourselves to accept crap deals to extend is proof. A scales after 55 for you is a 30% payrise, wow.
Now if you want to keep A scale after 55, fair enough, but B scale should be brought up to the same level at 55. So give me a 30% payrise after 55.
fairs fair buddy
The fact that you guys are falling over yourselves to accept crap deals to extend is proof. A scales after 55 for you is a 30% payrise, wow.
Now if you want to keep A scale after 55, fair enough, but B scale should be brought up to the same level at 55. So give me a 30% payrise after 55.
fairs fair buddy
The trouble is that you guys seem to have "won the lotto" while we B scalers get very damn little.
We don't begrudge you pay, quite the opposite actually.
ok keep your A scales. BUT B scales NEED a BIG payrise too
We don't begrudge you pay, quite the opposite actually.
ok keep your A scales. BUT B scales NEED a BIG payrise too
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness me how would Blunderbus and ACMS get on in the cockpit.
Lot of truth there blunderbus just the delivery a little lacking, think that was a 3 at best!
ACMS you need some serious help and therapy, you should not be in a cockpit at the moment, re read your posts you are one sick little computer.
Jose, trust me true seniority is when the senior man gets it not to troll down the list until you find the cheapest willing participant.
And who was it that told the real story about A scalers attempts to stop B scale......your story is pretty much how I recall it.
But at the end of the day CX Mismanagement are to blame for this, dont forget that. We need pay rises not linked to any other issue, PAY RISE SIMPLE.
Lot of truth there blunderbus just the delivery a little lacking, think that was a 3 at best!
ACMS you need some serious help and therapy, you should not be in a cockpit at the moment, re read your posts you are one sick little computer.
Jose, trust me true seniority is when the senior man gets it not to troll down the list until you find the cheapest willing participant.
And who was it that told the real story about A scalers attempts to stop B scale......your story is pretty much how I recall it.
But at the end of the day CX Mismanagement are to blame for this, dont forget that. We need pay rises not linked to any other issue, PAY RISE SIMPLE.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS,
You are assuming that all pilots want to stay past 55. You're kidding, right? Who wants to spend another 10 years being up in the middle of the night, listening to some guy like you, complaining about the contract he originally agreed to.
Moreover, how many new COS's do you think they could squeeze in during that period. I can't take much more of this.
You are assuming that all pilots want to stay past 55. You're kidding, right? Who wants to spend another 10 years being up in the middle of the night, listening to some guy like you, complaining about the contract he originally agreed to.
Moreover, how many new COS's do you think they could squeeze in during that period. I can't take much more of this.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UAE
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNEAKY EFP effect.
Don't know if anyone has considered the effect of EFP but the company is pretty sneaky here... For those not interested in the math, skip to the CONCLUSION...
For example...
Proposed FO monthly salary 2008: 66193, 2009: 68179
Hourly = 2008:788 (basic pay without hdp), 2009
12 (basic pay without hdp)
HDP = 55 2008 Total hourly 0-84 = 843
EFP hourly = 1182 2009 Total hourly 0-55.9 = 867
Total hourly 56-69.9 = 887
Total hourly 70-84 = 937
EFP hourly 84-92 = 1218
However, to compare apples to apples, Pfundability and Tax must be taken into account. Effect of pfundability and tax on HDP is that from 2009, HDP component must be increased by 15.5% but since it's tax free, must be further increased by the marginal tax rate of 19% (15.5%/0.81) = 19.13% in effect in 2009 (in pretax dollars)
Total hourly 0-55.9 = 812 + 65.52 = 877.52
Total hourly 56-69.9 = 812 + 89.35 = 901.35
Total hourly 70-84 = 812 + 148.92 =960.92
EFP hourly 84-92 = 1218
CONCLUSION:
In jan 2009 % hourly pay for pilots difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 26.7%
In jan 2008 % hourly pay for pilots difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 29.9%
currently, difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 43.45%
How can they say that productivity is not taken into account here?? What this is saying now is that in 2009 the PROTECTION that we pilots had from working above 84 hrs has been reduced, because the penalty to the company for rostering you above 84 hours that costs the company 43.45% today will reduce to costing the company only 26.7% in 2009.
Translation, it won't hurt the company as much in the future to roster you to 92 hours as it does today and so they'll do it without thinking twice about it!
Similarly there is a reduction in overtime protection for pilots above 92 hrs and above 100hrs. i.e. it hurts them a lot to do it now... but it will hurt them less to do it in the future.
Disclaimer... there is a slight calculation error here because this is more calculated from the pilot's before tax wages perspective rather than the company's cost perspective. If you take the company's cost perspective, just change the 19% effect of PF HDP to only 15.5% as this is the true cost to the company and not the before tax effect to the pilot's wage. Very small difference but the argument holds that it will cost the company much less to roster you to overtime in the future!
For example...
Proposed FO monthly salary 2008: 66193, 2009: 68179
Hourly = 2008:788 (basic pay without hdp), 2009
12 (basic pay without hdp) HDP = 55 2008 Total hourly 0-84 = 843
EFP hourly = 1182 2009 Total hourly 0-55.9 = 867
Total hourly 56-69.9 = 887
Total hourly 70-84 = 937
EFP hourly 84-92 = 1218
However, to compare apples to apples, Pfundability and Tax must be taken into account. Effect of pfundability and tax on HDP is that from 2009, HDP component must be increased by 15.5% but since it's tax free, must be further increased by the marginal tax rate of 19% (15.5%/0.81) = 19.13% in effect in 2009 (in pretax dollars)
Total hourly 0-55.9 = 812 + 65.52 = 877.52
Total hourly 56-69.9 = 812 + 89.35 = 901.35
Total hourly 70-84 = 812 + 148.92 =960.92
EFP hourly 84-92 = 1218
CONCLUSION:
In jan 2009 % hourly pay for pilots difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 26.7%
In jan 2008 % hourly pay for pilots difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 29.9%
currently, difference between working below 84hrs and above 84hrs = 43.45%
How can they say that productivity is not taken into account here?? What this is saying now is that in 2009 the PROTECTION that we pilots had from working above 84 hrs has been reduced, because the penalty to the company for rostering you above 84 hours that costs the company 43.45% today will reduce to costing the company only 26.7% in 2009.
Translation, it won't hurt the company as much in the future to roster you to 92 hours as it does today and so they'll do it without thinking twice about it!
Similarly there is a reduction in overtime protection for pilots above 92 hrs and above 100hrs. i.e. it hurts them a lot to do it now... but it will hurt them less to do it in the future.
Disclaimer... there is a slight calculation error here because this is more calculated from the pilot's before tax wages perspective rather than the company's cost perspective. If you take the company's cost perspective, just change the 19% effect of PF HDP to only 15.5% as this is the true cost to the company and not the before tax effect to the pilot's wage. Very small difference but the argument holds that it will cost the company much less to roster you to overtime in the future!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cant get it right ACMS
err.... wasnt asking if you were sick, I was telling you you are, but never let a little truth or fact get in the way of a biased incorrect statement, thats what we expect from you ACMS.......go have a serious re boot and have a couple of days off Prune.
I try to look at this from everyones angle, you seem to plan on staying post 55 yourself and all you are concerned about is your 5% travel fund loss, mate it is a lot more complicated than that.
Thats why the GC is obviously not rushing to rash conclusions. I am long time A scale and have serious concerns for those officers going to be longer in the RHS, without compensation and the yet to join DEFO's. The fact CX wants to cancel the FACA but still wants to have Freighter Captain pay just highlights they want their cake and eat it to. I do not want the HKAOA to put their endorsement on Unified Freighter scales to allow Walker and Co to tell the new hires the AOA endorsed this new payscale, let them sqirm in their own brown stuff.
You make me want to puke when you offer to take my payscale away, maybe my friend Blunderbus could put a few kind words together for you.
I try to look at this from everyones angle, you seem to plan on staying post 55 yourself and all you are concerned about is your 5% travel fund loss, mate it is a lot more complicated than that.
Thats why the GC is obviously not rushing to rash conclusions. I am long time A scale and have serious concerns for those officers going to be longer in the RHS, without compensation and the yet to join DEFO's. The fact CX wants to cancel the FACA but still wants to have Freighter Captain pay just highlights they want their cake and eat it to. I do not want the HKAOA to put their endorsement on Unified Freighter scales to allow Walker and Co to tell the new hires the AOA endorsed this new payscale, let them sqirm in their own brown stuff.
You make me want to puke when you offer to take my payscale away, maybe my friend Blunderbus could put a few kind words together for you.
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 13th Aug 2007 at 06:10. Reason: spelling... scared of blunderbus
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Coast N.A.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS get a grip
ACMS ,I'll say what many of us have said here many times. The Ascalers are not responsible for your conditions. We didn't want any other scales, we told the company it was a bad idea, we sent out info to prospective new hires, all to no avail. You lot came here anyhow. There is not one A scaler that wouldn't like to see the end of all other scales, one airline one payscale. That said I(we) have taken nothing but cuts, 22% in 01, then loss of 13th month, plus a 12 hour increase in flying hours per month, not to mention the loss of 2 weeks leave and a gutting of the overtime and leave credit system. Oh yes and on a base my pension is not ghosted like my HK collegues. All of these changes to what I agreed to join on. I always had the right to leave and didn't so I don't whine about the changes too much despite not liking them. Get over yourself ACMS. You agreed to come here and in that time your conditions and pay have improved. If you don't like it leave, otherwise suck it up.
We all need to vote NO! We can all do just fine in what we have for the moment. They are the ones that need OUR help so lets make sure we ALL get a good deal, not just a few.
And ACMS, going past 55? You have to be joking. I have no intention of doing that nor do many of my collegues. I know some will, but most won't. You can have it.
We all need to vote NO! We can all do just fine in what we have for the moment. They are the ones that need OUR help so lets make sure we ALL get a good deal, not just a few.
And ACMS, going past 55? You have to be joking. I have no intention of doing that nor do many of my collegues. I know some will, but most won't. You can have it.
Last edited by cxflyer; 13th Aug 2007 at 06:36. Reason: add
THE COLD HARD FACTS...so simple a pilot could understand it
A-scalers have taken the beating of the century for years.The new deal insists on eradicating the p fund,flying freighters and everything that entails including roster disruptions,travel allowance up in smoke,no pay raises..EVER.
Some of you make it sound like Cx 'introduced' B scales along with a box of chockies and a handshake....GET REAL...we fought that tooth and nail and it only affected new joiners...They rammed it up the employees collective ass.
If you're asking what we did way back then to prevent it then obviously you are 'post-action' but it is all in the union archives if you ever consider taking the time to educate yourselves.There is no way on god's earth any B-scaler could contribute in personal loss and financial contribution that which would even come close to what the A-scalers laid out in trying to protect conditions for ALL CREW in cx...ask any 49-er.If some f**kwitted A-scale guy admitted we should have done something back then.. then i put it to you he WAS one of a VERY slim minority who in fact DID do nothing..either that or he was kissing your ass..maybe he fancied you..there's a bit of it going around these days.
The original p/fund was designed for the 40 year old RAF types who joined in droves, back when cx had a recruiting standard, to give them a good retirement after 15 years service(to supplement their .25 cents/week p/fund from the airforce).Of course they hired younger guys on a-scale and it all blew up in their face.Now for the 'career'(sound of raucous laughter)pilots they have spat the dummy and want it dismantled.EVERY pilot should be on CPALRS..period.(not some b/s cx approved fund...who made that s**t up anyway?).We had solidarity way back when but of course along came all of you greedy little buggers looking for a step up from the cessna and snookered our efforts...resulting in...YOU GUESSED IT...B_SCALES/C-scales/Freighter scales!
DID-DAH...pure magic..all we got was a huge pay cut and 49 executed in the line of duty.(37 still MIA i might add)
Now you're telling me that i'm getting a pay RISE if i stay beyond 55???that's above the pay i'd be getting if i worked beyond 55 on freighters right?? A BIG F******G DUHHH to you!
ONE JOB ONE PAY sounds great to me..well said that man.
I don't particularly want to work beyond 55...i WON'T do it on crap pay..we work much harder than the contract jobs going at the mo'..i don't want to fly the freighter purely in protest at what cx did all those years ago..plus the s**t roster..and i strongly believe in an extremely wealthy,record profit making company being made to stick to it's word with regard to employment contracts...here's a quote from the past you may like to ask a senior guy sometime...
"that's not a contract...it's an 'agreement'....binding in HONOUR ONLY"
CX quotation of the century
Some of you make it sound like Cx 'introduced' B scales along with a box of chockies and a handshake....GET REAL...we fought that tooth and nail and it only affected new joiners...They rammed it up the employees collective ass.
If you're asking what we did way back then to prevent it then obviously you are 'post-action' but it is all in the union archives if you ever consider taking the time to educate yourselves.There is no way on god's earth any B-scaler could contribute in personal loss and financial contribution that which would even come close to what the A-scalers laid out in trying to protect conditions for ALL CREW in cx...ask any 49-er.If some f**kwitted A-scale guy admitted we should have done something back then.. then i put it to you he WAS one of a VERY slim minority who in fact DID do nothing..either that or he was kissing your ass..maybe he fancied you..there's a bit of it going around these days.
The original p/fund was designed for the 40 year old RAF types who joined in droves, back when cx had a recruiting standard, to give them a good retirement after 15 years service(to supplement their .25 cents/week p/fund from the airforce).Of course they hired younger guys on a-scale and it all blew up in their face.Now for the 'career'(sound of raucous laughter)pilots they have spat the dummy and want it dismantled.EVERY pilot should be on CPALRS..period.(not some b/s cx approved fund...who made that s**t up anyway?).We had solidarity way back when but of course along came all of you greedy little buggers looking for a step up from the cessna and snookered our efforts...resulting in...YOU GUESSED IT...B_SCALES/C-scales/Freighter scales!
DID-DAH...pure magic..all we got was a huge pay cut and 49 executed in the line of duty.(37 still MIA i might add)
Now you're telling me that i'm getting a pay RISE if i stay beyond 55???that's above the pay i'd be getting if i worked beyond 55 on freighters right?? A BIG F******G DUHHH
to you!ONE JOB ONE PAY sounds great to me..well said that man.
I don't particularly want to work beyond 55...i WON'T do it on crap pay..we work much harder than the contract jobs going at the mo'..i don't want to fly the freighter purely in protest at what cx did all those years ago..plus the s**t roster..and i strongly believe in an extremely wealthy,record profit making company being made to stick to it's word with regard to employment contracts...here's a quote from the past you may like to ask a senior guy sometime...
"that's not a contract...it's an 'agreement'....binding in HONOUR ONLY"
CX quotation of the century
pedantic little prick aren't you Cyril..........pathetic too
currently the contact you legally signed has you finishing A scale apon your retirement at 55-------I'm not taking anything away..you are..........
AND TO PROVE IT A LOT OF YOUR BROTHERS HAVE ACCEPTED FAR WORSE TO EXTEND.....
You make me want to puke when you offer to take my payscale away
AND TO PROVE IT A LOT OF YOUR BROTHERS HAVE ACCEPTED FAR WORSE TO EXTEND.....
What"s the hurry?
CX being forced to move onshore...read the company spiel at the top of the page of crew direct..it is ILLEGAL to impose condition of service changes in outport countries or use retirement age as leverage....HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE HERE...???
Maybe it's well on the way already and they need a hasty A-scale decision to prevent them putting the Ky-bosh on the p'fund....hmmmm
They wouldn't do that would they???...NOT
Maybe it's well on the way already and they need a hasty A-scale decision to prevent them putting the Ky-bosh on the p'fund....hmmmm
They wouldn't do that would they???...NOT
ACMS