C.O.S 08 - You're kidding me
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoS 08
Numero Crunchero
I for one am pleased that the GC has acted as they have.
CoS 08 did not need to go to the membership for a vote that would have seen it go down by probably a bigger margin than the first DEFO agreement. We have all been saved a great deal of administrative time and effort as a result, and the GC can be seen to be acting, as you have laid out, in the interests of the broader membership.
Thankyou.
It is my hope that the Company and the AOA can sit down to further meaningful negotiations in the near future. I do not believe that an 'ammendment' to the current CoS 08 proposal should be entertained, should the DFO produce one. This should be renegotiated wholesale to take into account the concerns of the broader membership.
BScaler
I for one am pleased that the GC has acted as they have.
CoS 08 did not need to go to the membership for a vote that would have seen it go down by probably a bigger margin than the first DEFO agreement. We have all been saved a great deal of administrative time and effort as a result, and the GC can be seen to be acting, as you have laid out, in the interests of the broader membership.
Thankyou.
It is my hope that the Company and the AOA can sit down to further meaningful negotiations in the near future. I do not believe that an 'ammendment' to the current CoS 08 proposal should be entertained, should the DFO produce one. This should be renegotiated wholesale to take into account the concerns of the broader membership.
BScaler
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS
To answer your questions,
1: Not true - under current pay scales, and 2009 payscales from the deal, you will NOT be on A scales. What I was trying to show was that the 'market forces' salary in 1992 will equal what CX thinks is the 'market forces' salary in 2009. I will estimate that you are currently SCN2-3 - so you will be SCN 4-6 depending on when you got your increment. In 2009 you will be about 12-14% behind CURRENT A scales if the payrises get imposed. Current (pay cuts included) A scale salary is approx on a par with 1994 A scale in HKG.
2:Without a lot of research I cannot answer that accurately. If you trust my 'guesstimating' lets agree to just over half. Many A scalers went on bases as FOs(like me). Many A scalers are finding that the CPAPF93(Fidelity) is better after 17 or so years. With CPALRS you pay say 10% of your salary to get 3.99months per year extra(close to your number). WIth CPAPF93 you get interest on money already there(assuming it is in cash fund), you get to keep your 10% (1.3 months) and CX give you another 15.5% (almost 2 months). Depending on how much you have in the PFUND, you can be better off by 2 months a year in the new fund. Many of my financial literate colleagues worked out a long time ago that the new fund was better than the old fund except from about 12-17 years service.
3: I can tell you for a fact that the paycuts were up to 22.5%. Depends on how you measure it...if you start from pre cut salary it is say a 22.5% pay cut for Aussie based salaries. If you start from post cut salaries it would take a 29% payrise to return it to pre cut levels. Did the options cover the paycuts? Well they were based on 10 years earnings in current rank. I was an FO so got fewer than most. I haven't tried to work it out exactly (spilt milk category!) but my guesstimate would be that it has covered me for less than 2 years cuts in a 20(30 RA65) year career. If I had sold them at $20 it would have covered me for around 5 years worth of cuts.
But the point is, from an A scalers point of view, sure we had SOME of our cuts recompensed, but we have had no recompense or acknowledgement of the increasing cost of living since 1995. I totally understand the B scaler's perspective at the same time...hence my many posts on 'who is most aggrieved'...the one promised the silver spoon and doesn't get it or the one promised a wooden spoon and ends up with it silver plated!?
Bottom line - you and I didn't create this situation. Picking on each other will solve nothing.
From here...well, now that I have to remain a GC member I will have to revert back and see what we think;-)
My guess...CX will withdraw the deal as the deal was 'contingent' on GC recommendation anyway. So technically speaking there is no deal to vote on. CX said it would only be offered if 'we' energetically recommended it...hence the internal debate amongst the GC.
Sit on your hands for now...the GC moves slowly so in the meantime try not to second guess us too much;-)
I personally don't believe the deal will be sweetened, but I have been proven wrong in the past. Put yourself in NPR's shoes arguing for a payrise for pilots......there is the board "why Nick, why are they are asking so much? Well a lot of them are really really annoyed and may say bad things! What percentage did we lose last year Nick? Oh about 1% or so not counting retirees. OK Nick, come back to us when we have a REAL problem"
EK management is like ours...will only pay when it has to. EK had almost 5% turnover last year and voila, a 17% payrise this year.
I think JTR is on the money - recalcitrant pilots are the likely outcome. But JTR, remember this, the fuel budget is not the same budget as Personnel. So a bonus can still be paid on personnel savings in spite of the higher fuel costs;-)
1: Not true - under current pay scales, and 2009 payscales from the deal, you will NOT be on A scales. What I was trying to show was that the 'market forces' salary in 1992 will equal what CX thinks is the 'market forces' salary in 2009. I will estimate that you are currently SCN2-3 - so you will be SCN 4-6 depending on when you got your increment. In 2009 you will be about 12-14% behind CURRENT A scales if the payrises get imposed. Current (pay cuts included) A scale salary is approx on a par with 1994 A scale in HKG.
2:Without a lot of research I cannot answer that accurately. If you trust my 'guesstimating' lets agree to just over half. Many A scalers went on bases as FOs(like me). Many A scalers are finding that the CPAPF93(Fidelity) is better after 17 or so years. With CPALRS you pay say 10% of your salary to get 3.99months per year extra(close to your number). WIth CPAPF93 you get interest on money already there(assuming it is in cash fund), you get to keep your 10% (1.3 months) and CX give you another 15.5% (almost 2 months). Depending on how much you have in the PFUND, you can be better off by 2 months a year in the new fund. Many of my financial literate colleagues worked out a long time ago that the new fund was better than the old fund except from about 12-17 years service.
3: I can tell you for a fact that the paycuts were up to 22.5%. Depends on how you measure it...if you start from pre cut salary it is say a 22.5% pay cut for Aussie based salaries. If you start from post cut salaries it would take a 29% payrise to return it to pre cut levels. Did the options cover the paycuts? Well they were based on 10 years earnings in current rank. I was an FO so got fewer than most. I haven't tried to work it out exactly (spilt milk category!) but my guesstimate would be that it has covered me for less than 2 years cuts in a 20(30 RA65) year career. If I had sold them at $20 it would have covered me for around 5 years worth of cuts.
But the point is, from an A scalers point of view, sure we had SOME of our cuts recompensed, but we have had no recompense or acknowledgement of the increasing cost of living since 1995. I totally understand the B scaler's perspective at the same time...hence my many posts on 'who is most aggrieved'...the one promised the silver spoon and doesn't get it or the one promised a wooden spoon and ends up with it silver plated!?
Bottom line - you and I didn't create this situation. Picking on each other will solve nothing.
From here...well, now that I have to remain a GC member I will have to revert back and see what we think;-)
My guess...CX will withdraw the deal as the deal was 'contingent' on GC recommendation anyway. So technically speaking there is no deal to vote on. CX said it would only be offered if 'we' energetically recommended it...hence the internal debate amongst the GC.
Sit on your hands for now...the GC moves slowly so in the meantime try not to second guess us too much;-)
I personally don't believe the deal will be sweetened, but I have been proven wrong in the past. Put yourself in NPR's shoes arguing for a payrise for pilots......there is the board "why Nick, why are they are asking so much? Well a lot of them are really really annoyed and may say bad things! What percentage did we lose last year Nick? Oh about 1% or so not counting retirees. OK Nick, come back to us when we have a REAL problem"
EK management is like ours...will only pay when it has to. EK had almost 5% turnover last year and voila, a 17% payrise this year.
I think JTR is on the money - recalcitrant pilots are the likely outcome. But JTR, remember this, the fuel budget is not the same budget as Personnel. So a bonus can still be paid on personnel savings in spite of the higher fuel costs;-)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning
It was nice to see that the GC has taken the sensible approach and not recommended this deal.
Just a few simple facts. It is ludicrous to expect A scale salaries to remain stagnant so as to offer parity. The real loser will be the B scale pilot, yet emotion on this forum seems to trump common sense. The higher the A scale goes, the higher the B scale follows. It's simple. Why don't you get it?
No, there will never be a unified payscale. You said you would do my job on less money so why would they up your salary. Have a peek in the Headland, it is full of recruits who have said they will do your job for even lesser money.
What to do now. Simply nothing. Just do your job. It is the present COS, with ASL and 55 that have hogtied the company. They want to expand but cannot facilitate this expansion under the present COS. It drives them nuts when they are losing by the very rules and conditions they imposed in the past.
For the AOA, ask for a simple payraise. Nothing more. Walk away if they demand other discussions. See above.
And indeed for everyone, look around. If there is a better option out there, don't be stupid, take it. If anything, it will make many of you feel better.
Yes, there is a great life after CX. Remember, it is only a job!
It was nice to see that the GC has taken the sensible approach and not recommended this deal.
Just a few simple facts. It is ludicrous to expect A scale salaries to remain stagnant so as to offer parity. The real loser will be the B scale pilot, yet emotion on this forum seems to trump common sense. The higher the A scale goes, the higher the B scale follows. It's simple. Why don't you get it?
No, there will never be a unified payscale. You said you would do my job on less money so why would they up your salary. Have a peek in the Headland, it is full of recruits who have said they will do your job for even lesser money.
What to do now. Simply nothing. Just do your job. It is the present COS, with ASL and 55 that have hogtied the company. They want to expand but cannot facilitate this expansion under the present COS. It drives them nuts when they are losing by the very rules and conditions they imposed in the past.
For the AOA, ask for a simple payraise. Nothing more. Walk away if they demand other discussions. See above.
And indeed for everyone, look around. If there is a better option out there, don't be stupid, take it. If anything, it will make many of you feel better.
Yes, there is a great life after CX. Remember, it is only a job!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comparison
JTR.
Our fuel bill last year was over $13billion. The salary and PF costs for pilots I have estimated at about $2.2billion.
So if the fuel burn went up 5% it would cost the company $650million extra in fuel. If that was given to B scalers and the fuel saved, it would amount to an almost 40% pay increase...actually, it would put B onto A scales and then give all of us (2100+) A scalers a 5-10% payrise on top of that.
So the CX pay proposal would cost them around 1-2% extra in fuel burn!
Kinda puts the pay thing into perspective doesn't it;-)
Our fuel bill last year was over $13billion. The salary and PF costs for pilots I have estimated at about $2.2billion.
So if the fuel burn went up 5% it would cost the company $650million extra in fuel. If that was given to B scalers and the fuel saved, it would amount to an almost 40% pay increase...actually, it would put B onto A scales and then give all of us (2100+) A scalers a 5-10% payrise on top of that.
So the CX pay proposal would cost them around 1-2% extra in fuel burn!
Kinda puts the pay thing into perspective doesn't it;-)
Westcoastcapt,
That's a very perceptive comment. A-scales are here until all A-scalers retire. Whilst they still exist there is a target for the B-scales so obviously it would be better if they had payrises as well because when they've gone what is there for B-scales to get apart from COS and productivity.
NC,
I really like your last calculation, I wonder how Nick will take it!!
That's a very perceptive comment. A-scales are here until all A-scalers retire. Whilst they still exist there is a target for the B-scales so obviously it would be better if they had payrises as well because when they've gone what is there for B-scales to get apart from COS and productivity.
NC,
I really like your last calculation, I wonder how Nick will take it!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I really like your last calculation, I wonder how Nick will take it!!"
I'll tell you how.
A 5% savings in fuel means 650 million increase in CX's profit which would make his bonus pretty damn high. What makes you think he would chose to give up his huge bonus so that you and I could have a raise??
Come on guy, we are talking management here.
I'll tell you how.
A 5% savings in fuel means 650 million increase in CX's profit which would make his bonus pretty damn high. What makes you think he would chose to give up his huge bonus so that you and I could have a raise??
Come on guy, we are talking management here.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Coast N.A.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense at last
Thank you Westcoast capt,
You have hit the nail on the head. The B scale will only be the A scale after all present "A scalers" have left. In a perfect world that would not be the case, it would happen overnight but we all know that will not happen. It only makes sense to want the scale one is following to continue to rise as it sets the bar for the others. Its not fair in the big picture but then again none of us were born with a card that entitled us to fair treatment all the time.
Thanks to everyone that made their voice heard at the GC level. This is OUR association and it is important that WE set our own agenda.
You have hit the nail on the head. The B scale will only be the A scale after all present "A scalers" have left. In a perfect world that would not be the case, it would happen overnight but we all know that will not happen. It only makes sense to want the scale one is following to continue to rise as it sets the bar for the others. Its not fair in the big picture but then again none of us were born with a card that entitled us to fair treatment all the time.
Thanks to everyone that made their voice heard at the GC level. This is OUR association and it is important that WE set our own agenda.
ACMS
If you were given a realistic deal and annual increments that went half way to keeping pace in hong kong then your current salary WOULD be at A-scale levels after(my) 21 years of service.The problem here is not the crew..it's the company.
They have sucessfully divided us for years because of guys like you.
Of course i'm sensitive about my pay..look what we've experienced over the last 15 years alone.You make that sound criminal because you signed up on B-scales.I believe in one job one pay...who doesn't? You make it sound like we're rubbing your nose in B-scale conditions.We spent millions fighting against it.
Is it unfair that we have crew doing EXACTLY the same job for less money than the next guy...you bet it is.But that doesn't make me want to throw away 20+ years of hard work.Why do I have to cut my hard earned situation to get for you what you should already have?..who's fault is that exactly..mine?...Direct your anger where it belongs.(the wife)
It ****s me that i can't bid on seniority my flight patterns or days off like my buddies in QF(i left a 747 job there to come here),it ticks me off that we cop 30 days of FREE reserve a year or that working on a 'G' day gets you 2.5% of your basic monthly pay whether you do a one-way Taipei or a 15 hour LAX,it ****s me 12 of my good mates got fired without reason fighting for pricks like you,etc etc...We've all got the moans but we CAN do something about this situation.I'm leaving anyway at 55 but I don't blame guys for staying or for having the opportunity to...on a decent package...and it should be the same for everyone...the company can easily afford it.
They have sucessfully divided us for years because of guys like you.
Of course i'm sensitive about my pay..look what we've experienced over the last 15 years alone.You make that sound criminal because you signed up on B-scales.I believe in one job one pay...who doesn't? You make it sound like we're rubbing your nose in B-scale conditions.We spent millions fighting against it.
Is it unfair that we have crew doing EXACTLY the same job for less money than the next guy...you bet it is.But that doesn't make me want to throw away 20+ years of hard work.Why do I have to cut my hard earned situation to get for you what you should already have?..who's fault is that exactly..mine?...Direct your anger where it belongs.(the wife)
It ****s me that i can't bid on seniority my flight patterns or days off like my buddies in QF(i left a 747 job there to come here),it ticks me off that we cop 30 days of FREE reserve a year or that working on a 'G' day gets you 2.5% of your basic monthly pay whether you do a one-way Taipei or a 15 hour LAX,it ****s me 12 of my good mates got fired without reason fighting for pricks like you,etc etc...We've all got the moans but we CAN do something about this situation.I'm leaving anyway at 55 but I don't blame guys for staying or for having the opportunity to...on a decent package...and it should be the same for everyone...the company can easily afford it.
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC - Many thanks for your informative posts. Much appreciated
Can I ask you however how the PAY negotiations "morf" into a discussion on COS...?
Can we not negotiate on salary only?
Guys
a) Ask yourself how these deals affect you and your family personally
then
b) Ask yourself how they affect our pilot community as a whole
Let your actions/decisions be based on both. We must stick together for any of this to have a desirable outcome..
It is because of this that YOU MUST JOIN THE AOA. YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN LATER ON IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT YOUR GC
This thing has a long way to go....
Can I ask you however how the PAY negotiations "morf" into a discussion on COS...?
Can we not negotiate on salary only?
Guys
a) Ask yourself how these deals affect you and your family personally
then
b) Ask yourself how they affect our pilot community as a whole
Let your actions/decisions be based on both. We must stick together for any of this to have a desirable outcome..
It is because of this that YOU MUST JOIN THE AOA. YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN LATER ON IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT YOUR GC
This thing has a long way to go....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting times indeed
Oh come on Ed, of course they can impose a change to your contract unilaterally. If your salary was increased by 1% you have not had your contract worsened so no judge would say that was a breach of your contract. If they introduced the defo arrangement it doesn't affect your contract.
Two of your sentences were spot on however. "This is the time we must stand firm, and not accept what would be yet another attempt to divide and conquer. Big balls stuff I know, but it's the only way forward."
We need all pilots to be in the AOA. We need all pilots to take an active part in AOA affairs and not just mouth off via PPrune, even though we know that most who do are just sad cases.
Example: dear old deluded slapfaan who probably believes "everybody goes on strike,bringing all operations to a grinding halt.CX beggs all pilots to resume work again..in return for a 50% pay-rise..."
The comapny sits there happily knowing that will never happen and i'd wager that salapfaan would be the first to go to work if a strike was called. How many people in 2001 voted for industrial action but didn't support it? How many after the event said that they hadn't voted for it in the first place when the numbers who did vote for it made it obvious that all the denying members were lying?
Yes we must stand firm, grow our union and grow our balls - the girls too!!
Two of your sentences were spot on however. "This is the time we must stand firm, and not accept what would be yet another attempt to divide and conquer. Big balls stuff I know, but it's the only way forward."
We need all pilots to be in the AOA. We need all pilots to take an active part in AOA affairs and not just mouth off via PPrune, even though we know that most who do are just sad cases.
Example: dear old deluded slapfaan who probably believes "everybody goes on strike,bringing all operations to a grinding halt.CX beggs all pilots to resume work again..in return for a 50% pay-rise..."
The comapny sits there happily knowing that will never happen and i'd wager that salapfaan would be the first to go to work if a strike was called. How many people in 2001 voted for industrial action but didn't support it? How many after the event said that they hadn't voted for it in the first place when the numbers who did vote for it made it obvious that all the denying members were lying?
Yes we must stand firm, grow our union and grow our balls - the girls too!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoS 08
Once again, my thanks to the GC, who evidently saw the very plain writing on the wall.
Here is my ten cents worth regarding a wholesale renegotiation of this thing.
Let's not even go down the road of voting to bring in lesser conditions for our future colleagues under the auspices of a so-called DEFO agreement. That one just can't be allowed to get through, no matter what sweeteners they offer existing aircrew. We have current provisions for DEFOs in our present contract - let's stick with them. If the Company cannot hire guys on their DEFO freighter deal, then offer the DEFO passenger deal to all new joiner DEFOs, as per the arrangements that were in place prior to the creation of ASL/Cathay Freighters.
Pay really needs to be looked at in isolation, as many members have suggested. A 'self-funded payrise' is not an option. A payrise should reflect the seven years since the last one was had by anybody, and the attendant productivity we have already given them in the intervening period. An element of back-dating should be included to reflect this. In this context, negotiating for a payrise commencing sometime in the future is not acceptable.
RA65 needs to be repackaged to take into account the valid concerns of junior officers in event of an industry slowdown.
I hope that the GC and the AOA President are heartened by the evident unity that the aircrew community has shown in response to the 'best deal' that the Company were prepared to come up with so far. This will strengthen their negotiating hand.
And it should be of no surprise to the Company to discover the depth of feeling held by the majority of aircrew over what they have proposed. I therefore hope the Company illustrates its sincerity in whatever further proposal is forthcoming.
The views expressed here, and in other forums, are in the main reasonable, and simply reflect the position of a pendulum that has swung too far in the Company's favour.
Now is the time for the Company to present a fair deal for aircrew.
Here is my ten cents worth regarding a wholesale renegotiation of this thing.
Let's not even go down the road of voting to bring in lesser conditions for our future colleagues under the auspices of a so-called DEFO agreement. That one just can't be allowed to get through, no matter what sweeteners they offer existing aircrew. We have current provisions for DEFOs in our present contract - let's stick with them. If the Company cannot hire guys on their DEFO freighter deal, then offer the DEFO passenger deal to all new joiner DEFOs, as per the arrangements that were in place prior to the creation of ASL/Cathay Freighters.
Pay really needs to be looked at in isolation, as many members have suggested. A 'self-funded payrise' is not an option. A payrise should reflect the seven years since the last one was had by anybody, and the attendant productivity we have already given them in the intervening period. An element of back-dating should be included to reflect this. In this context, negotiating for a payrise commencing sometime in the future is not acceptable.
RA65 needs to be repackaged to take into account the valid concerns of junior officers in event of an industry slowdown.
I hope that the GC and the AOA President are heartened by the evident unity that the aircrew community has shown in response to the 'best deal' that the Company were prepared to come up with so far. This will strengthen their negotiating hand.
And it should be of no surprise to the Company to discover the depth of feeling held by the majority of aircrew over what they have proposed. I therefore hope the Company illustrates its sincerity in whatever further proposal is forthcoming.
The views expressed here, and in other forums, are in the main reasonable, and simply reflect the position of a pendulum that has swung too far in the Company's favour.
Now is the time for the Company to present a fair deal for aircrew.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and if they don't????
It is what it is. The only thing that can matter is the market and if the expansion is needed.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some boys (and girls) who know that "One Airline - One Payscale" means something:
"Aer Lingus pilots are planning a two-day strike next week to protest the carrier's plan to set up a base at Belfast International Airport, where the Impact Trade Union claims the proposals for pay and work rules "are less favorable" than in the Republic."
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=9885
"Aer Lingus pilots are planning a two-day strike next week to protest the carrier's plan to set up a base at Belfast International Airport, where the Impact Trade Union claims the proposals for pay and work rules "are less favorable" than in the Republic."
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=9885
Rostered a fair whack of overtime with a px back to base next roster. I guess the're a little short of drivers. One would think this is a good time to be talking to the company about pay. Also puts the spotlight on the reason for age 65. Nothing to do with pending age disscrimination legislation in HK. What a crock.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jack 744
I am not sure how long you have been in CX. If you have been here a while you will know that CX pays us the courtesy of warning us in advance what they are going to impose...that is what has been happening for the last 15 years. The offered payrises were substantially less than what we asked for. Additionally, the AOA has never sought different payrises dependant on base.
Simply put, we could follow their agenda or walk out. We wanted to achieve the 'best deal' possible. The GC agreed that the 'best deal' is inadequate and so we will now see what our paymasters decide to do/impose.
Pilot turnover(non retirements) has gradually trickled up above the long term average(guesstimate of 1%). I think it would take a mass exodus or industrial action to get pay rises that people think are needed. I don't see us doing the latter so just depends on how much better other airlines are than CX.
Time will tell if CX has correctly read the market for pilots. Management seem to think $92,000 pa in Oz is acceptable in 2008 vs pax FO of $122,000.
Simply put, we could follow their agenda or walk out. We wanted to achieve the 'best deal' possible. The GC agreed that the 'best deal' is inadequate and so we will now see what our paymasters decide to do/impose.
Pilot turnover(non retirements) has gradually trickled up above the long term average(guesstimate of 1%). I think it would take a mass exodus or industrial action to get pay rises that people think are needed. I don't see us doing the latter so just depends on how much better other airlines are than CX.
Time will tell if CX has correctly read the market for pilots. Management seem to think $92,000 pa in Oz is acceptable in 2008 vs pax FO of $122,000.
Last edited by Numero Crunchero; 16th Aug 2007 at 09:06.