C.O.S 08 - You're kidding me
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What started as a simple pay negotiation has morphed into COS discussions. Go figure.
Emotion aside, this is really about dealing with a growing airline and a shortage of pilots. They need pax / freighter integration and employment past 55 in order to meet the growing demands. Nothing more.
If this is turned down, and I think it will be, the company will suggest that there will be chaos. So be it. They created the mess, let them solve it! Do you really think that they will try the sign or be fired nonsense. The courts have already shown that we are indeed employed in our based areas.
May I suggest that they start with a profit sharing scheme that actually reflects profits. Then go from there.
And please, don't get into this A/B scale drivel. In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.
If there are so many other better options out there, why are you still here?
Emotion aside, this is really about dealing with a growing airline and a shortage of pilots. They need pax / freighter integration and employment past 55 in order to meet the growing demands. Nothing more.
If this is turned down, and I think it will be, the company will suggest that there will be chaos. So be it. They created the mess, let them solve it! Do you really think that they will try the sign or be fired nonsense. The courts have already shown that we are indeed employed in our based areas.
May I suggest that they start with a profit sharing scheme that actually reflects profits. Then go from there.
And please, don't get into this A/B scale drivel. In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.
If there are so many other better options out there, why are you still here?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Out of the pollution.
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And please, don't get into this A/B scale drivel. In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.
Or there could be simply one pay scale.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B scaler,
what you propose was actually proposed and rejected. HDP will be offered to all regardless of salary scale.
To all A scalers. Yes I appreciate that we have not had a payrise for over a decade. BUT, if you have read some of my previous posts you will note that in 2009 B scales are at the levels of A scale in 1992! As much as I need new wheels for my porsche(I wish!) I will accept getting nothing till my colleagues who do the same work as I do, get paid as much as I do. Much company communication in 2001 was centred on giving A scales for CNs as it was not such a cost as they had already saved money on B scales as FOs. How things change! So in 2009 B scalers will only be 17 YEARS behind us.
Captain TOGA et al. I made a post 2 months ago that I was 'encouraged' to remove. Someone on PPRUNE asked about negotiations...to paraphrase myself I said "well we are about to enter into 2 months negotiations where we will be told that we are overpaid, underworked and should be grateful to have a job. In the end they will impose the deal they already had in mind".
Well, if I wasn't Australian I would understand the word IRONY! If that is too obtuse for you my American friend, lets just say that apparently you are overpaid - not sure about underworked!
I voted NO in the GC recommendation...I will vote NO in the vote. My No vote is a futile vote but just because prison rape is inevitable doesn't mean I have to supply the vaseline! It still sends a message of non complicity to our paymasters.
I have advised the GC that should this be 'recommended' by the GC I am no longer a GC member and so for the few of you that voted for me for next term, thanks, but no thanks. This may sound contradictory - but I have the utmost respect for my colleagues whom I have voted against. Thats the wonder of democracy! They believe what they believe, I believe what I believe - obviously very strongly.
Just remember - RA65 will happen (eventually) anyway due to anti discrimination. DEFO(UFO 08) will be offered in spite of us. The only things we can vote against are our payrises and removal of the FACA. Of course if the vote fails CX could always fire the 47(approx) ASL guys that ensure the existence of the FACA and then we would have no choice over flying the freighter and being rostered under the freighter rostering practices.
Be pragmatic and vote for the payrise/no FACA or be idealistic and reject what has been offered- your choice. My choice is already made but then I have had a little longer to consider all the facts.
what you propose was actually proposed and rejected. HDP will be offered to all regardless of salary scale.
To all A scalers. Yes I appreciate that we have not had a payrise for over a decade. BUT, if you have read some of my previous posts you will note that in 2009 B scales are at the levels of A scale in 1992! As much as I need new wheels for my porsche(I wish!) I will accept getting nothing till my colleagues who do the same work as I do, get paid as much as I do. Much company communication in 2001 was centred on giving A scales for CNs as it was not such a cost as they had already saved money on B scales as FOs. How things change! So in 2009 B scalers will only be 17 YEARS behind us.
Captain TOGA et al. I made a post 2 months ago that I was 'encouraged' to remove. Someone on PPRUNE asked about negotiations...to paraphrase myself I said "well we are about to enter into 2 months negotiations where we will be told that we are overpaid, underworked and should be grateful to have a job. In the end they will impose the deal they already had in mind".
Well, if I wasn't Australian I would understand the word IRONY! If that is too obtuse for you my American friend, lets just say that apparently you are overpaid - not sure about underworked!
I voted NO in the GC recommendation...I will vote NO in the vote. My No vote is a futile vote but just because prison rape is inevitable doesn't mean I have to supply the vaseline! It still sends a message of non complicity to our paymasters.
I have advised the GC that should this be 'recommended' by the GC I am no longer a GC member and so for the few of you that voted for me for next term, thanks, but no thanks. This may sound contradictory - but I have the utmost respect for my colleagues whom I have voted against. Thats the wonder of democracy! They believe what they believe, I believe what I believe - obviously very strongly.
Just remember - RA65 will happen (eventually) anyway due to anti discrimination. DEFO(UFO 08) will be offered in spite of us. The only things we can vote against are our payrises and removal of the FACA. Of course if the vote fails CX could always fire the 47(approx) ASL guys that ensure the existence of the FACA and then we would have no choice over flying the freighter and being rostered under the freighter rostering practices.
Be pragmatic and vote for the payrise/no FACA or be idealistic and reject what has been offered- your choice. My choice is already made but then I have had a little longer to consider all the facts.
NC,
A couple of points.
A-Scale 1992. There was a payrise with COS 94 and then a huge paycut with COS'99. Are you sure of your figures.
If the GC recommend the package it gives the entire membership the opportunity to say NO. I feel that is why CX want to be able to blame the GC when that vote happens. If the GC don't recommend it the package won't be offered. I guess the AOA could still run the vote though.
Wouldn't that be interesting!!!
It seems to me that the most important item is that the membership votes, preferably for/against the package but second best would be to go through the motions (not 1st choice because some would change their vote because it wouldn't affect them).
A couple of points.
A-Scale 1992. There was a payrise with COS 94 and then a huge paycut with COS'99. Are you sure of your figures.
If the GC recommend the package it gives the entire membership the opportunity to say NO. I feel that is why CX want to be able to blame the GC when that vote happens. If the GC don't recommend it the package won't be offered. I guess the AOA could still run the vote though.
Wouldn't that be interesting!!!
It seems to me that the most important item is that the membership votes, preferably for/against the package but second best would be to go through the motions (not 1st choice because some would change their vote because it wouldn't affect them).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a complete insult. The cumulative cost savings and productivity increases squeezed out of the aircrew over the last 13 years are massive. Good thing we waited until the very end to talk about pay! "Don't worry, we'll talk about pay later". Gee, that was worth the wait and everything else we gave away in the meantime!
The problem is, enough is NEVER enough for this company. After all we've given, now was the time to get a bit back due to the huge loses in purchasing power we've all suffered in recent years due to high inflation and unfavorable currency flucuations. This along with pilot shortages and record profitability for the company should be the time for this to be addressed. This pathetic offer gives CX everything they want in exchange for basically nothing. In fact, if you could put a dollar cost on all the aspects of this package including completely rectifying their Freighter fiasco overnight, I'm sure there is a huge cost SAVINGS in it for them. Nice.
No, No, NO!
The problem is, enough is NEVER enough for this company. After all we've given, now was the time to get a bit back due to the huge loses in purchasing power we've all suffered in recent years due to high inflation and unfavorable currency flucuations. This along with pilot shortages and record profitability for the company should be the time for this to be addressed. This pathetic offer gives CX everything they want in exchange for basically nothing. In fact, if you could put a dollar cost on all the aspects of this package including completely rectifying their Freighter fiasco overnight, I'm sure there is a huge cost SAVINGS in it for them. Nice.
No, No, NO!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65 When ????
A large part of the decision surrounds age 65.
So the question is how long would it take the Hong Kong government to impose legislation requiring the continuation of employment to 65 ?
IMHO it will take years. Those things move slowly to say the least.
So there is no rush to negotiate something before it is imposed. Other than by the management of course.
What was the result of the age discrimination case involving the Cabin Crew ? Has the co. extended all cabin crews COS ?
Standing by.
So the question is how long would it take the Hong Kong government to impose legislation requiring the continuation of employment to 65 ?
IMHO it will take years. Those things move slowly to say the least.
So there is no rush to negotiate something before it is imposed. Other than by the management of course.
What was the result of the age discrimination case involving the Cabin Crew ? Has the co. extended all cabin crews COS ?
Standing by.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the world
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those on a basing that will have no choice but to accept COS08 consider this:
Assuming a AUS DEFO takes 12 years to command
TOTAL EARNINGS 12 YEARS
COS99 AUD 1741620
COS08 AUD 1637136
Difference AUD 104484
ADD Difference between Yr 6 SFO and Yr1 & 2 CAPT Salary
48804
52944
Total out of pocket over 12 years AUD$206232
Only looked at DEFO for AUS but quite possibly a S/O would be worse off.
Assuming a AUS DEFO takes 12 years to command
TOTAL EARNINGS 12 YEARS
COS99 AUD 1741620
COS08 AUD 1637136
Difference AUD 104484
ADD Difference between Yr 6 SFO and Yr1 & 2 CAPT Salary
48804
52944
Total out of pocket over 12 years AUD$206232
Only looked at DEFO for AUS but quite possibly a S/O would be worse off.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoS 08
Five Green
You bring up a very good counterpoint to those who say 'RA65 and DEFO are going to happen anyway so this vote is just about pay and ASL'.
The glaring fact, as you say, is that cabin crew are not being given the same option to work to age 65 at this time. Therefore, attempts to present RA65 as fait accompli are misrepresentations of the truth.
Those that say '...it is going to happen anyway, there is nothing that we can do about it, so you better just vote for it...' are being mischevious. It is an argument that has been shown, historically, to be false. Here are some examples:
First Housing Agreement - voted down despite assertions by Murray Gardiner that '...the Company will throw their toys out of the cot if this doesn't pass; they will do what they want anyway; industrial relations will suffer irreparably if this does not pass...'
The subsequent Housing Agreement, the one we have today, represents an improvement on the original agreement. The Company did not throw their toys out of the cot, they did not simply impose an agreement on the aircrew community, and industrial relations did not suffer, (although it could be argued that they were at an all time low after the 49er debacle anyway).
DEFO Agreement - voted down by a landslide, despite assertions by Steve Turner that '...the Company can do whatever it wants with respect to offering new joiners any contract they choose...'
The fact is that new joiner DEFOs to the passenger fleet ever since, have been joining on CoS 99 provisions and they can thank the AOA membership for voting down the DEFO deal. The Company did not simply offer new joiners a contract of their choosing, they respected the comprehensive outcome of the vote.
It is true that DEFO freighter pilots have also been recruited on inferior terms over this time period, but I believe that they should be employed under passenger terms anyway since the Company would like to see all pilots fly passenger and freighter aircraft. Precedent for this situation exists, since this is exactly what occurred before a separate freighter company was created.
We should not agree to lesser conditions for future colleagues just to help the Company out of a situation they themselves created.
This second attempt to pass a DEFO agreement, though deficient, represents an improvement on that originally tabled.
If that which is negotiated is simply going to happen anyway, then why negotiate in the first place? Why have a vote on the proposal? Why seek approval for it?
My view is that we do have an opportunity to have a say on the subject. We can influence our future careers, (and that of our future colleagues), by the stance we take today on these issues. And I believe that the Company will listen to the result of the vote on this agreement, (should there be one), and the more comprehensive the vote one way or the other, the more carefully they will listen.
You bring up a very good counterpoint to those who say 'RA65 and DEFO are going to happen anyway so this vote is just about pay and ASL'.
The glaring fact, as you say, is that cabin crew are not being given the same option to work to age 65 at this time. Therefore, attempts to present RA65 as fait accompli are misrepresentations of the truth.
Those that say '...it is going to happen anyway, there is nothing that we can do about it, so you better just vote for it...' are being mischevious. It is an argument that has been shown, historically, to be false. Here are some examples:
First Housing Agreement - voted down despite assertions by Murray Gardiner that '...the Company will throw their toys out of the cot if this doesn't pass; they will do what they want anyway; industrial relations will suffer irreparably if this does not pass...'
The subsequent Housing Agreement, the one we have today, represents an improvement on the original agreement. The Company did not throw their toys out of the cot, they did not simply impose an agreement on the aircrew community, and industrial relations did not suffer, (although it could be argued that they were at an all time low after the 49er debacle anyway).
DEFO Agreement - voted down by a landslide, despite assertions by Steve Turner that '...the Company can do whatever it wants with respect to offering new joiners any contract they choose...'
The fact is that new joiner DEFOs to the passenger fleet ever since, have been joining on CoS 99 provisions and they can thank the AOA membership for voting down the DEFO deal. The Company did not simply offer new joiners a contract of their choosing, they respected the comprehensive outcome of the vote.
It is true that DEFO freighter pilots have also been recruited on inferior terms over this time period, but I believe that they should be employed under passenger terms anyway since the Company would like to see all pilots fly passenger and freighter aircraft. Precedent for this situation exists, since this is exactly what occurred before a separate freighter company was created.
We should not agree to lesser conditions for future colleagues just to help the Company out of a situation they themselves created.
This second attempt to pass a DEFO agreement, though deficient, represents an improvement on that originally tabled.
If that which is negotiated is simply going to happen anyway, then why negotiate in the first place? Why have a vote on the proposal? Why seek approval for it?
My view is that we do have an opportunity to have a say on the subject. We can influence our future careers, (and that of our future colleagues), by the stance we take today on these issues. And I believe that the Company will listen to the result of the vote on this agreement, (should there be one), and the more comprehensive the vote one way or the other, the more carefully they will listen.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoS 08
westcoastcapt
you wrote:
With respect, it has been 14 years, (say it slowly and appreciate the fullness of what you are saying), since the introduction of B-Scales. We have still not reached parity with A-Scales. The '...protect A-Scales at all costs and bring B up to A...' argument has not worked. It has run its course. Time for another approach.
How about '...aim for parity between A and B Scales and then move forward in unity with one another...'? I believe we would be more of a united force and would achieve better results for all concerned if this were to come to pass. (Actually I believe it would also be better for the Company as well, and consider their 'divide and conquer' strategy to be short-sighted, and in the long term, counter-productive.) And now, at a time when our A-Scale colleagues stand to gain 10 bonus years of employment, appears to be the most appropriate time to aim for it.
Note that I am just aiming at pay scales here - not Provident Fund, Travel Fund, Travel Benefits, Retirement Travel Benefits, as well as Medical and Dental Benefits, all of which are better CoS than what B-Scale colleagues enjoy.
Many fair-minded A-Scale colleagues agree with what I propose here, and I believe it has been put to the Company. I am not being inflamatory when I propose this, westcoastcapt, I truly believe it to be an attainable and logical move to make, and I would welcome support for it from the A-Scale community.
you wrote:
In order for B scales to rise, A scales must continue to rise. It's simple, yet some of our younger colleagues can't seem to grasp this basic fact.
How about '...aim for parity between A and B Scales and then move forward in unity with one another...'? I believe we would be more of a united force and would achieve better results for all concerned if this were to come to pass. (Actually I believe it would also be better for the Company as well, and consider their 'divide and conquer' strategy to be short-sighted, and in the long term, counter-productive.) And now, at a time when our A-Scale colleagues stand to gain 10 bonus years of employment, appears to be the most appropriate time to aim for it.
Note that I am just aiming at pay scales here - not Provident Fund, Travel Fund, Travel Benefits, Retirement Travel Benefits, as well as Medical and Dental Benefits, all of which are better CoS than what B-Scale colleagues enjoy.
Many fair-minded A-Scale colleagues agree with what I propose here, and I believe it has been put to the Company. I am not being inflamatory when I propose this, westcoastcapt, I truly believe it to be an attainable and logical move to make, and I would welcome support for it from the A-Scale community.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: hong kong
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-scaler,yours are the most measured,accurate & sensible posts in all of the Fragrant Harbour.We thank you.
I woke up this morning hoping the nightmare wasn't reality.Well,it is. The AOA has negotiated;-
-a 30% payrise for post 55 A-scalers
-what amounts to a few extra annual increments for B-scale captains
-a paycut for everyone else who's promotion prospects are affected,the irony being that the more junior you are the worse your promotion prospects are affected by extending the retirement age.
Those who have got the most will get even more.Those that have the least will get even less.
I am trying to get my inferior B-scale brain around all of this but it is just not big enough.Can someone do it for me?
I woke up this morning hoping the nightmare wasn't reality.Well,it is. The AOA has negotiated;-
-a 30% payrise for post 55 A-scalers
-what amounts to a few extra annual increments for B-scale captains
-a paycut for everyone else who's promotion prospects are affected,the irony being that the more junior you are the worse your promotion prospects are affected by extending the retirement age.
Those who have got the most will get even more.Those that have the least will get even less.
I am trying to get my inferior B-scale brain around all of this but it is just not big enough.Can someone do it for me?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my response
ACMS : Believe it or not I do not have a Porsche or other fancy car I drive an old wreck . I do not own a rolex but a Seiko watch , And yes I see the effect that inflation is having on my salary so please before you fly off the handle and think that all A scalers are greedy , perhaps try to understand that when we arrived in HK there was one salary scale and an expectation that that renumeration would keep pace with inflation. Not so ! along came B scales and all it's inherent problems. Should we have rejected it , with 20 20 hindsight yes . But the companies position was and still is they have the right to offer market rates. If pilots accept that salary, they will come and work here. I have yet to see you complain about the freighter pay or conditions which are much worse than yours. Do not be jealous of someone with more than you . Work to bring your salary to the same level for the same job instead.
B Scaler : I would happily forego 2% if I thought that it would give all B scales A scale salaries .. But I can assure you that it will not . So if it is offered I will take it and fight for equality later. We have rejected pay rises before and lived to regret it . So take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose . Learn from past mistakes and do not continue to make the same ones over and over.
However before I am attacked from all sides . Why are we even voting on this deal at all. It sucks for every one , I do not need RA65 right now the company does , what I want is better working conditions for everyone. Sit on this there is no rush . The company needs RA 65 or it would not be offering A scales . They need pilots and given a few more months that need is going to get a lot bigger . I think that there is a lot more room for an improved offer if the pressure due to a pilot shortage increases.
B Scaler : I would happily forego 2% if I thought that it would give all B scales A scale salaries .. But I can assure you that it will not . So if it is offered I will take it and fight for equality later. We have rejected pay rises before and lived to regret it . So take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose . Learn from past mistakes and do not continue to make the same ones over and over.
However before I am attacked from all sides . Why are we even voting on this deal at all. It sucks for every one , I do not need RA65 right now the company does , what I want is better working conditions for everyone. Sit on this there is no rush . The company needs RA 65 or it would not be offering A scales . They need pilots and given a few more months that need is going to get a lot bigger . I think that there is a lot more room for an improved offer if the pressure due to a pilot shortage increases.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: hong kong
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oriental Flyer, so what do you do with the extra $1m+ per year? Where do you shop? Harrods? Fenwicks??
In general,but there are exceptions,the A-scaler is genetically programmed to not give a flying f**k about anything or anybody except itself. You have to understand this because it is coming soon to a flightdeck near you. Next time you hear one bitching about lack of payrises ask them about their $7.47 per share CX share options.(remember them?they love to keep quiet about these)
Freighter pilots have the option to move to the pax fleet right? so eventually they end up on the same conditons & pay as all other non-A-scale.
You will encounter all manner of A-scale smokescreens. Beware & stand your ground.
In general,but there are exceptions,the A-scaler is genetically programmed to not give a flying f**k about anything or anybody except itself. You have to understand this because it is coming soon to a flightdeck near you. Next time you hear one bitching about lack of payrises ask them about their $7.47 per share CX share options.(remember them?they love to keep quiet about these)
Freighter pilots have the option to move to the pax fleet right? so eventually they end up on the same conditons & pay as all other non-A-scale.
You will encounter all manner of A-scale smokescreens. Beware & stand your ground.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Officers will have a one-off opportunity for a one way transfer to CoS '08 during the period between 1st November 2007 and 21st December 2007. Those who make such an election will transfer to CoS '08 effective 1st January 2008.
Officers who transfer to CoS '08 may elect to retain their current "A", "B" or Freighter Basic Salary Scales and for those under 55, the applicable Green Pages as well, if these are deemed to be better.
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.
Officers who transfer to CoS '08 may elect to retain their current "A", "B" or Freighter Basic Salary Scales and for those under 55, the applicable Green Pages as well, if these are deemed to be better.
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.
I'm an SO and want to "protect" my access to bypass pay by remaining on COS99 while still in HKG, but want to go on a base in the future.
The timeline quoted above seems to suggest that there's only one window of opportunity to change to COS08. Is this a case of sign over now, or can you go on a base on COS99? Is the intention to stop those still on COS99 from being able to go on a base, due to not being on the new COS?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoS 08
oriental flyer
You wrote:
If you were, in fact, to be happy to forgo a 2% pay rise, (and we are just talking productivity-based HDP here, not basic salary), so as to apply it to B-Scale salaries, this would undeniably have the effect of helping B-Scales up on the way to A-Scale levels. Consider the goodwill you would generate from your 1700 junior colleagues if the 400-strong A-Scale community backed this proposal, and were seen to be backing it.
I would applaud your pragmatism and vision if, (like some of your A-Scale colleagues I know also prepared to do the same), your offer was genuine.
From where I stand, the loss that A-Scalers would suffer in giving up a pitiful 2% HDP rise to help out their junior colleagues, pales in comparison with the gain that the A-Scale community may stand to receive from an extra 10 years employment.
May I ask though, how you would propose to 'take it and fight for equality later...' or, as you put it elsewhere in your post 'take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose...'? I would like you to elaborate on this. '14 years' says that these are empty words.
Please do not think of this as a personal 'attack' but rather as an opportunity to further healthy discussion on this subject. I believe that we should try to walk a mile in the other person's shoes to try to understand their position. You cannot deny that you have had the best years here at Cathay, oriental flyer, and stand to gain 10 more of them. How about genuinely thinking, for a second, in the interests of unity, of those in a less fortunate position. Would you be prepared to do that?
Here is an illustration for you. You'll see elsewhere in my posts that I believe the DEFO portion of this agreement to be unpalatable, even though it represents an improvement on that tabled some time ago. Why would I even be interested in the DEFO portion of this agreement, and why would I take an interest in it's provisions when it does not immediately affect me in the slightest?
The reason I take an interest is that I believe it to be the responsibility of the more senior aircrew to look out for their junior colleagues, particularly in an environment where one is not encouraged to put one's head above the parapet when there are upgrades on the horizon, and tools such as 'Category B' to prevent or delay those upgrades. (Just talk to Murray Gardiner about his brush with 'Category B' prior to command when he was AOA President as a Senior First Officer.)
In return for being a faithful steward of this responsibility, we stand to gain a more united aircrew body. Read: 'a happier place to work' or 'better prospects for overall improvements in conditions' or even 'an aircrew body more prepared to contribute to the success of the Company' - or even all three combined. Now this is what I would see as payback for taking an interest in the plight of those more junior to me. And in that way, I am a selfish person, because this is the type of place in which I want to work, and it is what I will work towards.
Do I have a naive sense of unattainable utopia? Possibly. But one thing is for certain, if we do not even try to strive for unity, simply surrendering to cynical personal gain instead, then it will never happen.
You wrote:
I would happily forego 2% if I thought that it would give all B scales A scale salaries .. But I can assure you that it will not . So if it is offered I will take it and fight for equality later. We have rejected pay rises before and lived to regret it . So take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose .
I would applaud your pragmatism and vision if, (like some of your A-Scale colleagues I know also prepared to do the same), your offer was genuine.
From where I stand, the loss that A-Scalers would suffer in giving up a pitiful 2% HDP rise to help out their junior colleagues, pales in comparison with the gain that the A-Scale community may stand to receive from an extra 10 years employment.
May I ask though, how you would propose to 'take it and fight for equality later...' or, as you put it elsewhere in your post 'take it with both hands but with the option to go back for more whenever we choose...'? I would like you to elaborate on this. '14 years' says that these are empty words.
Please do not think of this as a personal 'attack' but rather as an opportunity to further healthy discussion on this subject. I believe that we should try to walk a mile in the other person's shoes to try to understand their position. You cannot deny that you have had the best years here at Cathay, oriental flyer, and stand to gain 10 more of them. How about genuinely thinking, for a second, in the interests of unity, of those in a less fortunate position. Would you be prepared to do that?
Here is an illustration for you. You'll see elsewhere in my posts that I believe the DEFO portion of this agreement to be unpalatable, even though it represents an improvement on that tabled some time ago. Why would I even be interested in the DEFO portion of this agreement, and why would I take an interest in it's provisions when it does not immediately affect me in the slightest?
The reason I take an interest is that I believe it to be the responsibility of the more senior aircrew to look out for their junior colleagues, particularly in an environment where one is not encouraged to put one's head above the parapet when there are upgrades on the horizon, and tools such as 'Category B' to prevent or delay those upgrades. (Just talk to Murray Gardiner about his brush with 'Category B' prior to command when he was AOA President as a Senior First Officer.)
In return for being a faithful steward of this responsibility, we stand to gain a more united aircrew body. Read: 'a happier place to work' or 'better prospects for overall improvements in conditions' or even 'an aircrew body more prepared to contribute to the success of the Company' - or even all three combined. Now this is what I would see as payback for taking an interest in the plight of those more junior to me. And in that way, I am a selfish person, because this is the type of place in which I want to work, and it is what I will work towards.
Do I have a naive sense of unattainable utopia? Possibly. But one thing is for certain, if we do not even try to strive for unity, simply surrendering to cynical personal gain instead, then it will never happen.
Last edited by BScaler; 11th Aug 2007 at 04:04. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A vs B
Jobe: If there were no A scale positions would you be so angry . Flippant Comments such as the ones you made in your post do little to close the gap and engender sympathy for our B scale pilots. In fact you do your B scale fraternity a great deal of harm by attacking the A scale salary . I would like to remind you that you came to HK fully aware of the offered salary and accepted the position so do not attack those who were lucky enough to obtain a better deal by virtue of arriving in HK at an earlier time . TO say that freighter pilots get the chance to join the pax fleet so their reduced conditions do not matter shows that you do not care about them , they are still losing out for 3 years and may not wish to transfer to HK. So if you are looking for sympathy and support do not attack those on A scales.
B scaler :
Yes I would be prepared to forego 2% of HDP if it would uplift B scale salaries but comments like those from Jobe make it very hard to convince the majority of fellow A scalers to think the same way . Your arguments are well thought out and very reasonable
B scaler :
Yes I would be prepared to forego 2% of HDP if it would uplift B scale salaries but comments like those from Jobe make it very hard to convince the majority of fellow A scalers to think the same way . Your arguments are well thought out and very reasonable
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hotels everywhere
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me the only thing to do is to reject the offer and then drag the whole thing out for as long as possible. As a strategy this will put pressure on the company to better the offer.
A few A scalers about to retire may lose out if this drags on for many more months - but everybody else hopefully stand to gain??
A No vote purely for this reason is the way to go methinks.
It is absolutely unacceptable that the majority of us - especially the younger guys who make up the future of the company - are being shafted like this.
A few A scalers about to retire may lose out if this drags on for many more months - but everybody else hopefully stand to gain??
A No vote purely for this reason is the way to go methinks.
It is absolutely unacceptable that the majority of us - especially the younger guys who make up the future of the company - are being shafted like this.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: hong kong
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr OF,you do the A-scale cause a great dis-service by trying to plead hardship on their behalf.(grocery prices? really?)
I fought against ASL in the mid 90's without success.Did you? Probably not if it didn't affect your promotion. The point is that eventually there is some light at the end of the tunnel for those fine freighter officers which is not the case for A vs. B.
The only way that the company has been able to continue paying the A-scale to the privileged few is because of the productivity increases brought about by those that are not on it.To cap it all you then get a bigger profit share when there happens to be one.Go figure.
I fought against ASL in the mid 90's without success.Did you? Probably not if it didn't affect your promotion. The point is that eventually there is some light at the end of the tunnel for those fine freighter officers which is not the case for A vs. B.
The only way that the company has been able to continue paying the A-scale to the privileged few is because of the productivity increases brought about by those that are not on it.To cap it all you then get a bigger profit share when there happens to be one.Go figure.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anybody who is not yet a captain, this is a pay CUT and its a bad one. You will earn less over the course of your career, then be forced to work more years to make up the difference.
Obviously it will be a killer if you are a S/O, no movement above means no movement anywhere. As you may be stuck doing 7 to 9 years pegged at the upper S/O level which makes things really tight if you buy a property and get hit for tax on the whole wack.
And since everyone will still be an F/O when the housing stops at 15 years, what are the chances of the AOA negotiating a better deal when you go back to renting as an F/O while waiting a few more years for command.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big picture
Guys,
It's easy to miss the point here. For the company, this is not about a pay deal. This is about solving their long term crew shortage. We simply gave them a viable method to negotiate this in, and they ran with the ball.
Here's a few truths:
They are not favouring A scalers. Look at it from their perspective. They need pilots, and they need them now. The easiest solution is to extend the retirement age, and yes, it happens to be A scalers that form that group. Many A scalers are C and T, and most will stay on for another 10 years. Maintaining their current pay and even offering a small rise is chicken-feed in order secure such a large group of pilots.
DEFO is another easy and fast way to crew new airplanes. The sticking point here ( as with other items ) is that they want us to endorse it for them. They can then say that it was ratified by the members, and they are seen to maintain harmonious crew relations.
B scalers are easy to deal with. The company doesn't need to offer most of them a pay rise of any consequence. The B scale F/O's are not experienced enough to leave for other airlines ( they'd be there already otherwise) , and those that are will be close to command, and will get a pay rise then. The B scale captains will get a pay rise when they move into C and T.
Obviously we made the mistake when we allowed the pay talks to evolve into conditions of service talks.
It's easy to miss the point here. For the company, this is not about a pay deal. This is about solving their long term crew shortage. We simply gave them a viable method to negotiate this in, and they ran with the ball.
Here's a few truths:
They are not favouring A scalers. Look at it from their perspective. They need pilots, and they need them now. The easiest solution is to extend the retirement age, and yes, it happens to be A scalers that form that group. Many A scalers are C and T, and most will stay on for another 10 years. Maintaining their current pay and even offering a small rise is chicken-feed in order secure such a large group of pilots.
DEFO is another easy and fast way to crew new airplanes. The sticking point here ( as with other items ) is that they want us to endorse it for them. They can then say that it was ratified by the members, and they are seen to maintain harmonious crew relations.
B scalers are easy to deal with. The company doesn't need to offer most of them a pay rise of any consequence. The B scale F/O's are not experienced enough to leave for other airlines ( they'd be there already otherwise) , and those that are will be close to command, and will get a pay rise then. The B scale captains will get a pay rise when they move into C and T.
Obviously we made the mistake when we allowed the pay talks to evolve into conditions of service talks.