C.O.S 08 - You're kidding me
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true pudding boy!!! Manning levels are the key concern that all airlines have today. Cathay will look at the short term solutions which they have in this offer. We will either endorse it or turn it down, the pay offer to them is just a carrot dangle in the hope we fall for it!!
Vote yes for the pay rise as a short term solution....ie until they get it right, and then vote no for this other crap.....oh thats right we cant do that can we!!!
Vote yes for the pay rise as a short term solution....ie until they get it right, and then vote no for this other crap.....oh thats right we cant do that can we!!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the fact that time to command will be delayed. The top captain band is year 17 as a senior captain. Added to the 2 years as a captain we have 19 years of increments. If age 65 is achieved then a fair number of captains will achieve year 17 some time before their retirement age. This company has a track record of not extending bands, take the case of the flight engineers on the classic that have been frozen on year 10 for some considerable years effectively losing money each year due to inflation.
There needs to be some guarantee that these bands will be extended to years 25 or whatever before this package is taken further.
Don't assume it will be sorted in the future!!
There needs to be some guarantee that these bands will be extended to years 25 or whatever before this package is taken further.
Don't assume it will be sorted in the future!!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Between a rock
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is difficult for anyone to support a vote for an extension which by all accounts is a significant advantage to only a few. As a B scaler, I can never achieve the post 55 contract the A scalers can. Their initial contract was to 55, after that surely it should be something attainable by all, particularly in the light of our colleagues accepting extensions on the freighter scale.
I suspect there is a limited pot of money available for salaries and for it to be dished out to A scale extendies at the expense of bringing the B scale up to parity is surley difficult for the majority (of pilots not necessarily AOA members!) to accept and I think inequitable to say the least.
I support the right of people to extend but NOT at the expense of others and at a payscale that is not achievable by all.
Apart from that the rest of the deal is crap. It remains in my interest to delay the onset of the RA65 for as long as possible.
I suspect there is a limited pot of money available for salaries and for it to be dished out to A scale extendies at the expense of bringing the B scale up to parity is surley difficult for the majority (of pilots not necessarily AOA members!) to accept and I think inequitable to say the least.
I support the right of people to extend but NOT at the expense of others and at a payscale that is not achievable by all.
Apart from that the rest of the deal is crap. It remains in my interest to delay the onset of the RA65 for as long as possible.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oriental Flyer, well said
I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding those who illogically attack A scalers. The real enemy here is the management who created B C D and F scales, ASL, Cathay Freighters and the associated lower scales with opportunities for junior crew to take commands on Freighters way out of seniority provided the crew do it on the cheap.
The GC have yet to let us know their thoughts on the proposal yet these volunteers still have ill informed accusations by members (and cheap non members) who cannot seek out the facts. Case in point, some drongo accusing them of lying about the percentages, NC and the team just do not play that game, albeit that any percentages quoted are “Perfect World” scenarios due to the tiered HDP element of the proposal and unachievable in the real world.
It is a fact that in many jurisdictions we operate in age discrimination legislation prevents 1. Age to determine when to retire and 2. Offering reduced salary/conditions based on age. Age retirement is basically controlled by licensing authorities and not contractually enforceable if legally challenged, and it will be implemented regardless of this vote.
Cathay know this and have capitulated to the inevitable reluctantly, despite some crew accepting B scale or Freighter pay post 55 making this a long drawn out episode. It would be unworkable to have A scale post 55 on bases with the legislation, and B scale in HKG where the majority of the C&T system resides with legislation on the horizon. It will tick me off just as much as it does the FO’s to see those retreads get back onto A scale but in the overall scheme of things we must not be consumed by these back door winners, particularity the so called quitters and re joiners.
If you peel away all the dressing (does not take long!) on this proposal the A scalers gain maybe 1% at the cost of losing some Green Page benefits post 55, probably losing more than is gained ultimately. B scalers get various small increases well below expectations especially considering strong profits. Up to a theoretical 14.8% for HKG B scale Captains. Incidentally why accept the loss of travel fund and being forced to the new travel scheme when legislation probably prevents that as well?
So what is wrong with the proposal, many have pointed out we have over the years given productivity with nothing in return, just delaying tactic empty promises. Cost of living and exchange rate factors have reduced disposable income and the Non Captains are going to have to spend longer in the RHS for zero compensation if accepting COS 08. The scales peak out at 17years a point that many Capts are already at. Those scales were constructed based on age 55 retirement. The same is true for FO scales, more increments are needed along with some bigger numbers on the BASIC SALARY.
I would gladly forfeit the 1% if all Captains are paid the 14 year old A scales and if the company wants to cancel the freighter agreement I would be happy with that if they jettison the freighter pay and the freighter commands were allocated using true seniority. Management created the Freighter fiasco; they have to unravel the mess. The DEFO proposal still comes up short in the overall dollar earnings scenario.
On balance a NO vote probable from Cyril
I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding those who illogically attack A scalers. The real enemy here is the management who created B C D and F scales, ASL, Cathay Freighters and the associated lower scales with opportunities for junior crew to take commands on Freighters way out of seniority provided the crew do it on the cheap.
The GC have yet to let us know their thoughts on the proposal yet these volunteers still have ill informed accusations by members (and cheap non members) who cannot seek out the facts. Case in point, some drongo accusing them of lying about the percentages, NC and the team just do not play that game, albeit that any percentages quoted are “Perfect World” scenarios due to the tiered HDP element of the proposal and unachievable in the real world.
It is a fact that in many jurisdictions we operate in age discrimination legislation prevents 1. Age to determine when to retire and 2. Offering reduced salary/conditions based on age. Age retirement is basically controlled by licensing authorities and not contractually enforceable if legally challenged, and it will be implemented regardless of this vote.
Cathay know this and have capitulated to the inevitable reluctantly, despite some crew accepting B scale or Freighter pay post 55 making this a long drawn out episode. It would be unworkable to have A scale post 55 on bases with the legislation, and B scale in HKG where the majority of the C&T system resides with legislation on the horizon. It will tick me off just as much as it does the FO’s to see those retreads get back onto A scale but in the overall scheme of things we must not be consumed by these back door winners, particularity the so called quitters and re joiners.
If you peel away all the dressing (does not take long!) on this proposal the A scalers gain maybe 1% at the cost of losing some Green Page benefits post 55, probably losing more than is gained ultimately. B scalers get various small increases well below expectations especially considering strong profits. Up to a theoretical 14.8% for HKG B scale Captains. Incidentally why accept the loss of travel fund and being forced to the new travel scheme when legislation probably prevents that as well?
So what is wrong with the proposal, many have pointed out we have over the years given productivity with nothing in return, just delaying tactic empty promises. Cost of living and exchange rate factors have reduced disposable income and the Non Captains are going to have to spend longer in the RHS for zero compensation if accepting COS 08. The scales peak out at 17years a point that many Capts are already at. Those scales were constructed based on age 55 retirement. The same is true for FO scales, more increments are needed along with some bigger numbers on the BASIC SALARY.
I would gladly forfeit the 1% if all Captains are paid the 14 year old A scales and if the company wants to cancel the freighter agreement I would be happy with that if they jettison the freighter pay and the freighter commands were allocated using true seniority. Management created the Freighter fiasco; they have to unravel the mess. The DEFO proposal still comes up short in the overall dollar earnings scenario.
On balance a NO vote probable from Cyril
Jetset,
Do you honestly think CX wanted tp pay A-Scales after 55?
They must hate it. The truth is they have realised from trheir lawyers that they will have to pay it on most bases and that they have to change the RA. The alternative is to still have 55 in Hong Kong only which would mean the bases would be shut off for years to anyone from HKG. It wasn't part of a "pot" of money to be negotiated. It was pragmatically saving legal fees.
Do you honestly think CX wanted tp pay A-Scales after 55?
They must hate it. The truth is they have realised from trheir lawyers that they will have to pay it on most bases and that they have to change the RA. The alternative is to still have 55 in Hong Kong only which would mean the bases would be shut off for years to anyone from HKG. It wasn't part of a "pot" of money to be negotiated. It was pragmatically saving legal fees.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Between a rock
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst there may be a legal case to answer if it was introduced without a vote, that would not be the case if it was agreed i.e. if we vote for a combined payscale past 55. In which case I would be a lot more supportive.
I suspect that none of us are particularly supportive of any of this though. It is a divisive deal at a time when we should be uniting the group.
One payscale, make it A.
I suspect that none of us are particularly supportive of any of this though. It is a divisive deal at a time when we should be uniting the group.
One payscale, make it A.
May I remind some of you A scalers that a few of us B+ scalers will suffer a 5% PAY CUT apon turning 55 through the loss of Travel fund. How do you justify that hey?
Meanwhile you A scale buggers that thought you were retiring at 55 on your nice big P funds get to keep your considerable A scale salary for another 10 years and take out your P fund.
geeesshhh
Not a A scale V B scale debate?????????? how else do you expect us to see it.
Meanwhile you A scale buggers that thought you were retiring at 55 on your nice big P funds get to keep your considerable A scale salary for another 10 years and take out your P fund.
geeesshhh
Not a A scale V B scale debate?????????? how else do you expect us to see it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: VHHH
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying us peanuts in return for 3+ more years as an FO?
Is the company so confident that they would get enough crew for all the new aircrafts that they offer us this pathetic amount? With the current pay, or even the proposed new pay, can they recruit fast enough to keep pace with the planned expansion?
It's funny that with the dire recruitment response in north America they are (non)offerring f*** all.
Is the company so confident that they would get enough crew for all the new aircrafts that they offer us this pathetic amount? With the current pay, or even the proposed new pay, can they recruit fast enough to keep pace with the planned expansion?
It's funny that with the dire recruitment response in north America they are (non)offerring f*** all.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Burpengary
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do Nothing!!!!!!
Say no! The company is in no position to negotiate!! The worldwide pilot shortage is here and now! We do not have to take such a ****e deal unless YOU agree to it! This is not just about keeping people here..... this is about attracting quality new joiners. Would you come to live in HK knowing what you do since you've been here? Sit on our hands and wait for a real offer!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the Age thing !!
I am not sure why we should be considering the possible legislated age 65 retirement age.
IF and it is a big IF they force the co. into age 65 ,it will have to be on whatever scale people are on. The reason being, to lower scales after retirement is legislated would be deemed age discrimination. ie you cannot pay someone less to do a job because they are older. The current extendees may even have a legal argument that they were forced to do just that.
So bearing in mind the age 65 should come with the current scales (ie legally the co. should pay A to A scalers and B to B scalers etc.) What we are agreeing to is :
1) reduce the earnings of New DEFOs
2) accept a insignificant pay raise. In some cases N. America NONE !
3) Fly the freighter (with the freighter crewing rules and patterns)
4) Agree to work for the same dollar value with no inflationary adjustment for the near future.
IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THE WE HAVE TO VOTE NO NO NO!! We get very very little and give up ALOT long before we have to.
Some suggestions :
1) If we are going to fly freighters it should be on PAX cos and crewing rules. However as long as there are still ASL captains there still exists a possibility of safety issues with crewing and therefore the freighter crewing agreement is still necessary.
2) Stop the insulting practise of pay increases for some and not for all. At some point we all deserve a raise regardless of how far our money goes in our home country.
3) remove the requirement to go on COS 08 (or whatever it ends up being 09,10 etc) when a base is forced into 65.
4) make by pass pay a written policy with guidelines and time frames written down. ie You will be assessed within 1 year of our expected need for a command course. or better yet, the co. should assess a guaranteed number of pilots per year until those disadvantaged et their command (ok dreaming a little there !!)
Other than that there is nothing wrong !!!!
One more note on the age thing. The current practice of extending (not withstanding the pay scale on which the extension is given, and the picking and choosing) , could be argued meets the legal requirement to offer age 65 retirement.
WHAT HAPPENED TO JUST GETTING THE PAY RISE WE DESERVE WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED ? WHY THE FEAR MONGERING RE: AGE 65 ?
So what is the rush ??????????
IF and it is a big IF they force the co. into age 65 ,it will have to be on whatever scale people are on. The reason being, to lower scales after retirement is legislated would be deemed age discrimination. ie you cannot pay someone less to do a job because they are older. The current extendees may even have a legal argument that they were forced to do just that.
So bearing in mind the age 65 should come with the current scales (ie legally the co. should pay A to A scalers and B to B scalers etc.) What we are agreeing to is :
1) reduce the earnings of New DEFOs
2) accept a insignificant pay raise. In some cases N. America NONE !
3) Fly the freighter (with the freighter crewing rules and patterns)
4) Agree to work for the same dollar value with no inflationary adjustment for the near future.
IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THE WE HAVE TO VOTE NO NO NO!! We get very very little and give up ALOT long before we have to.
Some suggestions :
1) If we are going to fly freighters it should be on PAX cos and crewing rules. However as long as there are still ASL captains there still exists a possibility of safety issues with crewing and therefore the freighter crewing agreement is still necessary.
2) Stop the insulting practise of pay increases for some and not for all. At some point we all deserve a raise regardless of how far our money goes in our home country.
3) remove the requirement to go on COS 08 (or whatever it ends up being 09,10 etc) when a base is forced into 65.
4) make by pass pay a written policy with guidelines and time frames written down. ie You will be assessed within 1 year of our expected need for a command course. or better yet, the co. should assess a guaranteed number of pilots per year until those disadvantaged et their command (ok dreaming a little there !!)
Other than that there is nothing wrong !!!!
One more note on the age thing. The current practice of extending (not withstanding the pay scale on which the extension is given, and the picking and choosing) , could be argued meets the legal requirement to offer age 65 retirement.
WHAT HAPPENED TO JUST GETTING THE PAY RISE WE DESERVE WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED ? WHY THE FEAR MONGERING RE: AGE 65 ?
So what is the rush ??????????
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CYRILJGROOVE
opportunities for junior crew to take commands on Freighters way out of seniority
Originally Posted by CYRILJGROOVE
I would be happy with that if...the freighter commands were allocated using true seniority
Most airlines have different schedules, bases, and rates of pay for different aircraft. When someone takes a lesser-paying, harder-working command on another aircraft because someone senior to him chooses NOT to take that command, it is not considered taking the command "early," or "out of seniority." It is a PERFECT example of seniority in action.
This misunderstanding is just another wedge which divides our pilot group. Let's stop talking this way.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What seems to escape many of you is that CX will only respond to people leaving. It's quite simple, really. Management doesn't care whether you are upset when you head off to work, just the fact that you are going off to work. But, they will take notice if they cannot recruit or you leave and go elsewhere. The only reason there were freighter salaries is because they could easily fill all the B scale slots. Let's remember that those who joined in April 93 said they would do our jobs for less money. And those who joined ASL in 95 said they would again do the same job for even lesser money.
The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.
The hotel is full of recruits so their present package is obviously sufficient!
Again, these DEFO recruits are saying that they are willing to join at an even lesser level. They are doing to many of you on the B / ASL scales that you did to us on the A scale.
So what can you do? Essentially nothing. Again, if it is that bad, why are you still here? Or better yet, why did you join in the first place!!!!
The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.
The hotel is full of recruits so their present package is obviously sufficient!
Again, these DEFO recruits are saying that they are willing to join at an even lesser level. They are doing to many of you on the B / ASL scales that you did to us on the A scale.
So what can you do? Essentially nothing. Again, if it is that bad, why are you still here? Or better yet, why did you join in the first place!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Coast N.A.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO
Well said WestCoast capt. We were undercut in the past, now others are being undercut. There is only one answer. vote NO! In my view we have been failed by the GC again! How the hell did this become a CoS review? THAT has never gone our way. As for us flying the freighters, NO. They created this situation they can figure it out themselves. There is not enough in this for any of us to vote yes. Lets vote no and then sit back. None of us should be in any rush.
ACMS do us all a favour and quit you whiner.
ACMS do us all a favour and quit you whiner.
Last edited by cxflyer; 11th Aug 2007 at 19:30. Reason: adding
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time I look at this crock of poo I see something else that grips my sh!tter.
Officers on a freighter extension will complete a freighter commitment, with freighter service prior to 1 Jan 2008 counting towards that commitment. Transfer back to the passenger fleet will be in accordance with the Freighter Basings Policy. Officers who are held on the Freighter Aircraft beyond their commitment period will be eligible for Integration Deferment Pay. Upon completion of their Freighter commitment, such Officers will return to their original Salary Scale and accrued increment.
So 14 or so guys on the classic, not sure how many on the 744F who were on a little old extension post 55 to top up the old provident fund (100s of thousands) can now go back to A scales and bump more B scale FOs down the list some more. This is a serious joke. If they were that happy to come over to the freighter in the first place and accept freighter year 10 salary then they should stay on the freighter until 65 on year 12 scale unless of course they can persuade their old A scale colleagues in management to put up the scales a few years.
Get real
Officers on a freighter extension will complete a freighter commitment, with freighter service prior to 1 Jan 2008 counting towards that commitment. Transfer back to the passenger fleet will be in accordance with the Freighter Basings Policy. Officers who are held on the Freighter Aircraft beyond their commitment period will be eligible for Integration Deferment Pay. Upon completion of their Freighter commitment, such Officers will return to their original Salary Scale and accrued increment.
So 14 or so guys on the classic, not sure how many on the 744F who were on a little old extension post 55 to top up the old provident fund (100s of thousands) can now go back to A scales and bump more B scale FOs down the list some more. This is a serious joke. If they were that happy to come over to the freighter in the first place and accept freighter year 10 salary then they should stay on the freighter until 65 on year 12 scale unless of course they can persuade their old A scale colleagues in management to put up the scales a few years.
Get real
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASL
What are your thoughts on the ASL integration?
Will they all have to come over in order to lose FACA?
Heard some of these guys will not want to come over to CX since they will be forced off their bases to more junior, east coast bases, when they join at the bottom.
Will they all have to come over in order to lose FACA?
Heard some of these guys will not want to come over to CX since they will be forced off their bases to more junior, east coast bases, when they join at the bottom.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt,
Quote
"The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.
The hotel is full of recruits so their present package is obviously sufficient!
Again, these DEFO recruits are saying that they are willing to join at an even lesser level. They are doing to many of you on the B / ASL scales that you did to us on the A scale."
Give it a rest will ya. There is no shortage of A scalers willing to go fly clapped out old freighters around for 7-10 days at a time on B scale extensions. Plain and simple! In fact the irony is some of the most vocal "I never would have joined on B-Scale" crowd mysteriously don't feel that way anymore at 55. As previous posts have mentioned, it is from a legal perspective on the company's behalf. Let's try to be productive here please.
I think the whole deal is pathetic, and as usual skewed very, very heavily in the company's favor. I can't say that I was expecting a miracle, but this is just ridiculous.
No.
Quote
"The sole reason that this new offer proposes 55+ at the same salary is because there is not a line up to accept the present offer at reduced salaries. Plain and simple! And they need these pilots if they wish to expand.
The hotel is full of recruits so their present package is obviously sufficient!
Again, these DEFO recruits are saying that they are willing to join at an even lesser level. They are doing to many of you on the B / ASL scales that you did to us on the A scale."
Give it a rest will ya. There is no shortage of A scalers willing to go fly clapped out old freighters around for 7-10 days at a time on B scale extensions. Plain and simple! In fact the irony is some of the most vocal "I never would have joined on B-Scale" crowd mysteriously don't feel that way anymore at 55. As previous posts have mentioned, it is from a legal perspective on the company's behalf. Let's try to be productive here please.
I think the whole deal is pathetic, and as usual skewed very, very heavily in the company's favor. I can't say that I was expecting a miracle, but this is just ridiculous.
No.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A scale pay rise
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Can someone please explain to me why I would vote (or someone think I would vote) for an A scale pay rise. A scale ends at 55……Any day worked past 55 is an EXTENSION of contract and therefore needs to be renegotiated. A scale past 55 is a FAT pay rise!! If you could not possibly work for B scale money and all other conditions then great leave! I acknowledge the requirement to increase the retirement age but I will NOT be voting to extend someone on conditions I can never achieve.
A scale are asking B scale to vote them in a pay rise….what the!!!!
[/font]
A scale are asking B scale to vote them in a pay rise….what the!!!!
[/font]