Age Discrimination Laws
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age Discrimination Laws
A cut and paste of some of the legslation that CX management is faced with. This is why A scales have been offered.
Britain is changing
The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 came into force on 1 October 2006.
The regulations (which will not affect the age at which people can claim their state pension):
· ban age discrimination in terms of recruitment, promotion and training.
· ban unjustified retirement ages of below 65.
· remove the current age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights.
· allow pay and non-pay benefits to continue which depend on length of service requirements of 5 years or less or which recognise and reward loyalty and experience and motivate staff
The Government’s new age discrimination laws will give individuals important new rights, extend existing rights and remove traditional barriers. Employees will have a statutory right to request working beyond compulsory retirement,
AUST
Age discrimination is clearly a problem for both younger and older Australians. In relation to older Australians, in particular, many recent reports have emphasised the negative consequences of age discrimination on the wellbeing of older Australians and the broader consequences for the community. There is also evidence that the ageing of Australia’s population will lead to an increase in the problem of age discrimination if Government action is not taken to address this issue. Government action is needed to address the generally unfounded negative stereotypes that employers and policy makers may have about both younger and older Australians, which limit their contribution to the community and the economy.4
The ‘Dominant Reason’ Test The ADA includes a dominant reason test in determining whether or not an act has been done ‘because of’ the age of a person. Section 16 provides:
Age discrimination under State and Territory law
Age discrimination is unlawful in all States and Territories in the areas of employment
The Workplace Relations Act 1996 contains a number of provisions
aimed at eliminating discrimination in employment, including on the ground of ageSection 170CK of the Act stipulates that an employer must not terminate an employee.s employment for reasons of, or including, discrimination on the ground of age.
HRC Report No. 1, Compulsory Age Retirement, examined complaints by four pilots who were compulsorily retired at age 60 from their employment with a major airline. The Human Rights Commissioner found that the policy of compulsory retirement upon attaining the age of 60 constituted discrimination on the basis of age. He recommended the repeal of compulsory retirement provisions in the Public Service Act 1922 and in other federal legislation. The Commissioner also recommended that the Commonwealth legislate to provide a comprehensive national prohibition of age discrimination.
USA
To prohibit age discrimination in employment. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". 2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential forjob performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwisedesirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons; 1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual orotherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because ofsuch individual's age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way whichwould deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employmentopportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,because of such individual's age; or (3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply withthis chapter.
HONG KONG
Although these Guidelines are not backed by legislation, they set forth the best practices, which employers and employment agencies are encouraged to follow on a voluntary basis to the best of their ability. It
is also in the employers’ interest in ensure equal opportunities in employment. In doing so, employers will -
��gain trust and respect from their employees; and
��have a larger pool of talents from which to select the most
suitable staff to meet the manpower needs of the company.
What is meant by age discrimination in employment?
Age discrimination in employment occurs when an employee orprospective employee is subject to unfair or different treatment in respectof his or her employment on the ground of age. It may occur in the arrangements for recruitment, promotion, transfer or training, the access to terms and conditions of employment, voluntary departure or redundancy schemes, or retirement policies
Britain is changing
The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 came into force on 1 October 2006.
The regulations (which will not affect the age at which people can claim their state pension):
· ban age discrimination in terms of recruitment, promotion and training.
· ban unjustified retirement ages of below 65.
· remove the current age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights.
· allow pay and non-pay benefits to continue which depend on length of service requirements of 5 years or less or which recognise and reward loyalty and experience and motivate staff
The Government’s new age discrimination laws will give individuals important new rights, extend existing rights and remove traditional barriers. Employees will have a statutory right to request working beyond compulsory retirement,
AUST
Age discrimination is clearly a problem for both younger and older Australians. In relation to older Australians, in particular, many recent reports have emphasised the negative consequences of age discrimination on the wellbeing of older Australians and the broader consequences for the community. There is also evidence that the ageing of Australia’s population will lead to an increase in the problem of age discrimination if Government action is not taken to address this issue. Government action is needed to address the generally unfounded negative stereotypes that employers and policy makers may have about both younger and older Australians, which limit their contribution to the community and the economy.4
The ‘Dominant Reason’ Test The ADA includes a dominant reason test in determining whether or not an act has been done ‘because of’ the age of a person. Section 16 provides:
Age discrimination under State and Territory law
Age discrimination is unlawful in all States and Territories in the areas of employment
The Workplace Relations Act 1996 contains a number of provisions
aimed at eliminating discrimination in employment, including on the ground of ageSection 170CK of the Act stipulates that an employer must not terminate an employee.s employment for reasons of, or including, discrimination on the ground of age.
HRC Report No. 1, Compulsory Age Retirement, examined complaints by four pilots who were compulsorily retired at age 60 from their employment with a major airline. The Human Rights Commissioner found that the policy of compulsory retirement upon attaining the age of 60 constituted discrimination on the basis of age. He recommended the repeal of compulsory retirement provisions in the Public Service Act 1922 and in other federal legislation. The Commissioner also recommended that the Commonwealth legislate to provide a comprehensive national prohibition of age discrimination.
USA
To prohibit age discrimination in employment. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". 2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential forjob performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwisedesirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons; 1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual orotherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because ofsuch individual's age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way whichwould deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employmentopportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,because of such individual's age; or (3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply withthis chapter.
HONG KONG
Although these Guidelines are not backed by legislation, they set forth the best practices, which employers and employment agencies are encouraged to follow on a voluntary basis to the best of their ability. It
is also in the employers’ interest in ensure equal opportunities in employment. In doing so, employers will -
��gain trust and respect from their employees; and
��have a larger pool of talents from which to select the most
suitable staff to meet the manpower needs of the company.
What is meant by age discrimination in employment?
Age discrimination in employment occurs when an employee orprospective employee is subject to unfair or different treatment in respectof his or her employment on the ground of age. It may occur in the arrangements for recruitment, promotion, transfer or training, the access to terms and conditions of employment, voluntary departure or redundancy schemes, or retirement policies
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all very well and I fully support CX's (and KA!) intention to follow the letter of the age discrimination laws.
However, can we therefore expect them to follow the letter of the law in ALL aspects of UK employment law. Will they be implementing policies for paternity / maternity leave, part time working, redundancy to name just a few?
I expect they won't mind if we follow the correct procedure to ballot for industrial action.
CX is not bringing in age 65 retirement because of legislation in its various basis. It's because it needs pilots and isn't able to attract them anymore with the crap package on offer to new joiners.
However, can we therefore expect them to follow the letter of the law in ALL aspects of UK employment law. Will they be implementing policies for paternity / maternity leave, part time working, redundancy to name just a few?
I expect they won't mind if we follow the correct procedure to ballot for industrial action.
CX is not bringing in age 65 retirement because of legislation in its various basis. It's because it needs pilots and isn't able to attract them anymore with the crap package on offer to new joiners.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grasping Cyril!
Since when does anyone in Hong Kong care what's happening in the rest of the world? Your in China mate, leave when your contracted to leave!
Or you could negotiate something more suitable to YOU! Just don't cry about the law or lack there of!
Since when does anyone in Hong Kong care what's happening in the rest of the world? Your in China mate, leave when your contracted to leave!
Or you could negotiate something more suitable to YOU! Just don't cry about the law or lack there of!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly age 65 on the bases only effects the based pilots not the one's in Hong Kong. Last I look the UK base is just about empty and the Australian bases stand at less than 100 pilots (captains).Majority of the pilots are in Hong Kong and as we stand we do not have legislation here for age 60 or 65. So our contract states age 55 and that is the only thing we can say is enforceable.
If they have to pass a law here for age 65 it will take time maybe 1 - 2 years, by which time the major expansion will be just about be done.
Cx knows that the number of pilots due to hang up their wings in the next 2-3 years is huge, so they are desperate to keep most of the senior crews (just think of the reduced training cost), why did you think they went from B scale with no education and limited housing to A scale with no travel allowance.
This is the typical arrogance of CX trying to pull bluff...lets see
If they have to pass a law here for age 65 it will take time maybe 1 - 2 years, by which time the major expansion will be just about be done.
Cx knows that the number of pilots due to hang up their wings in the next 2-3 years is huge, so they are desperate to keep most of the senior crews (just think of the reduced training cost), why did you think they went from B scale with no education and limited housing to A scale with no travel allowance.
This is the typical arrogance of CX trying to pull bluff...lets see
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. CX don’t care about the age discrimination laws. If they did they would not be making cabin crew who joined after ’93 retire at the ripe old age of 45. They only want to keep pilots and the age discrimination thing is just a convenient excuse to get passed by the group as it is now law and they "have to". 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By pass pay
CX are going to be required to meet the same retirement age as other countries, and in due course Hong Kong. ie over 55 and i most likely 65.
The point here that CX want the pilots to ratify the extention to age 65, and therefore do away with bypass pay when pilots extend past 55, which at present costs them money.
The point here that CX want the pilots to ratify the extention to age 65, and therefore do away with bypass pay when pilots extend past 55, which at present costs them money.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rice pudding, exactly right.
They can't make pilots retire or go onto reduced terms at age 55 in Europe although many senior guys seem to be doing it voluntarily, however......they still have to pay bypass pay for anyone working beyond 55 as it's in the contract. Anyone on a base or thinking of going on one before command would be mad to vote for anything that both increases retirement age and takes away bypass pay. If those two things are wrapped up together again in whatever they come out with next then I'm fairly sure that no F/O's or S/O's would vote for it.
They can't make pilots retire or go onto reduced terms at age 55 in Europe although many senior guys seem to be doing it voluntarily, however......they still have to pay bypass pay for anyone working beyond 55 as it's in the contract. Anyone on a base or thinking of going on one before command would be mad to vote for anything that both increases retirement age and takes away bypass pay. If those two things are wrapped up together again in whatever they come out with next then I'm fairly sure that no F/O's or S/O's would vote for it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"they still have to pay bypass pay for anyone working beyond 55 as it's in the contract."......... bwaaahhhhh..... and Santa Claus comes down the chimney and leaves presents for all the good children....
So if there are 37 pilots over the age the 55 employed by CX, then 37 FO's get by-pass pay and 37 SO's get by-pass pay...... please grow up.... care to name even half of them on by-pass pay????
So if there are 37 pilots over the age the 55 employed by CX, then 37 FO's get by-pass pay and 37 SO's get by-pass pay...... please grow up.... care to name even half of them on by-pass pay????
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut and paste from a recent human rights case in Canada.
MONTREAL (CP) - Two former Air Canada (TSX:AC.B) pilots didn't face age discrimination when Canada's largest airline forced them to retire at age 60, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled Friday.
The tribunal said the position of pilot carries significant prestige and neither man experienced "age-related disadvantages or negative stereotyping." "The tribunal finds that age 60 is the normal age of retirement ... for persons working in positions similar to the positions of the complainants," said the judgment.
"As such, the mandatory retirement policy of Air Canada does not constitute a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act."
The decision followed hearings that took place in January and March.
George Vilven of Airdrie, Alta., and Robert Neil Kelly of Oakwood, Ont., launched their challenges after the airline forced them into retirement when they turned 60 in 2003 and 2005 respectively.
Supporting their cause was a group of pilots who belong to the Fly Past 60 Coalition.
Vilven said he's disappointed with the ruling and plans to appeal, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court.
"I thought maybe it would happen that way but I just assumed that in Canada this wouldn't be the case," he said in an interview.
The 62-year-old said the policy is out of synch with Canadian society and the airlines of many other countries.
His real fight appears to have been with his union, which he said rejected Air Canada's offer to mediate a resolution.
Capt. Andy Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said the ruling recognized the rights of the collective bargaining process, which resulted in the setting of the retirement age on behalf of the airline's 3,000 pilots.
"Collective bargaining is a process that is one of the policies of Canada and obviously as an association we think members of the union are in the best position to understand what their self-interests are and should be allowed to negotiate that," he said in an interview.
Wilson said the fixed age of retirement benefits its members and received vast support from pilots.
"They determined by a three-to-one margin that they prefer the system that's been in place for over 50 years."
Air Canada welcomed the ruling.
"It confirms that our retirement policy complies with the law and was fairly applied in the case of these individuals," spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said.
Although some pilots are employed by the airline following retirement, they work as instructors in ground schools and simulators.
The tribunal said 60 is the normal retirement age for pilots who fly with regularly scheduled, international flights with major airlines. Consequently, it is neither discriminatory nor contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"The purpose of (the section of the Act) is to strike a balance between the need for protection against age discrimination and the desirability of those in the workplace to bargain for an organize their own terms of employment," read the 20-page ruling.
Both complainants quickly resumed their piloting careers with other Canadian airlines that have no age maximums.
Kelly testified that he was offered employment with Skyservice Airlines as he was returning his security pass to Air Canada.
As a pilot with nearly 33 years of service, Kelly earns about $10,000 a month in pension. His Skyservice job adds another $72,000 per year. Vilven's pension is less lucrative because of his shorter work history.
Canada has no maximum licensing age for airline pilots.
However, pilots over 40 are required to have physical examinations every six months, while younger pilots undergo annual exams.
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed in January to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial pilots. The move adheres to new standards approved in March 2006 by the International Civil Aviation Organization that raises the maximum age for pilots.
The United Nations agency also established a standard that one of the pilots in a two-pilot crew be younger than 60.
In Canada, at least, the membership can negotiate the retirement age that fits the majority. (and I know that we're in China!)
MONTREAL (CP) - Two former Air Canada (TSX:AC.B) pilots didn't face age discrimination when Canada's largest airline forced them to retire at age 60, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled Friday.
The tribunal said the position of pilot carries significant prestige and neither man experienced "age-related disadvantages or negative stereotyping." "The tribunal finds that age 60 is the normal age of retirement ... for persons working in positions similar to the positions of the complainants," said the judgment.
"As such, the mandatory retirement policy of Air Canada does not constitute a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act."
The decision followed hearings that took place in January and March.
George Vilven of Airdrie, Alta., and Robert Neil Kelly of Oakwood, Ont., launched their challenges after the airline forced them into retirement when they turned 60 in 2003 and 2005 respectively.
Supporting their cause was a group of pilots who belong to the Fly Past 60 Coalition.
Vilven said he's disappointed with the ruling and plans to appeal, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court.
"I thought maybe it would happen that way but I just assumed that in Canada this wouldn't be the case," he said in an interview.
The 62-year-old said the policy is out of synch with Canadian society and the airlines of many other countries.
His real fight appears to have been with his union, which he said rejected Air Canada's offer to mediate a resolution.
Capt. Andy Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said the ruling recognized the rights of the collective bargaining process, which resulted in the setting of the retirement age on behalf of the airline's 3,000 pilots.
"Collective bargaining is a process that is one of the policies of Canada and obviously as an association we think members of the union are in the best position to understand what their self-interests are and should be allowed to negotiate that," he said in an interview.
Wilson said the fixed age of retirement benefits its members and received vast support from pilots.
"They determined by a three-to-one margin that they prefer the system that's been in place for over 50 years."
Air Canada welcomed the ruling.
"It confirms that our retirement policy complies with the law and was fairly applied in the case of these individuals," spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said.
Although some pilots are employed by the airline following retirement, they work as instructors in ground schools and simulators.
The tribunal said 60 is the normal retirement age for pilots who fly with regularly scheduled, international flights with major airlines. Consequently, it is neither discriminatory nor contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"The purpose of (the section of the Act) is to strike a balance between the need for protection against age discrimination and the desirability of those in the workplace to bargain for an organize their own terms of employment," read the 20-page ruling.
Both complainants quickly resumed their piloting careers with other Canadian airlines that have no age maximums.
Kelly testified that he was offered employment with Skyservice Airlines as he was returning his security pass to Air Canada.
As a pilot with nearly 33 years of service, Kelly earns about $10,000 a month in pension. His Skyservice job adds another $72,000 per year. Vilven's pension is less lucrative because of his shorter work history.
Canada has no maximum licensing age for airline pilots.
However, pilots over 40 are required to have physical examinations every six months, while younger pilots undergo annual exams.
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed in January to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial pilots. The move adheres to new standards approved in March 2006 by the International Civil Aviation Organization that raises the maximum age for pilots.
The United Nations agency also established a standard that one of the pilots in a two-pilot crew be younger than 60.
In Canada, at least, the membership can negotiate the retirement age that fits the majority. (and I know that we're in China!)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for copying the article.
I believe it shows how complexe the issue of age discrimination can be, from a legal perspective. And another reason why it's too early to feel pressured to increase our retirement age. The implications of a potential age discrimination law that may be enacted in several years in HK are just unclear at this point. There's no need to rush the issue.
I believe it shows how complexe the issue of age discrimination can be, from a legal perspective. And another reason why it's too early to feel pressured to increase our retirement age. The implications of a potential age discrimination law that may be enacted in several years in HK are just unclear at this point. There's no need to rush the issue.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please remember that the majority of the pilots are in HKG and we do not have the law to work to 65. Until the time we have the law our contract states 55. If Cx extends they will have to pay bypass.
Dont worry about the pilots on the bases they are a small minority...cx wants 65 in HKG they do not care about Europe, australia etc. The onshore base thing is a red herring !
Dont worry about the pilots on the bases they are a small minority...cx wants 65 in HKG they do not care about Europe, australia etc. The onshore base thing is a red herring !
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hotels everywhere
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the bottom line is pretty simple - if pilots 'must' all of a sudden work past 55 in HKG then so 'must' cabin crew. Just like in the states where these ole' grannies throw your sandwich at you on Delta/ AA etc.
And secondly they 'must' pay bypass - and come up with some system that is clear to all of us in terms of who gets it and when - instead of saying you had a long flare in the sim and therefore don't qualify.....
With abated breath I wait......
And secondly they 'must' pay bypass - and come up with some system that is clear to all of us in terms of who gets it and when - instead of saying you had a long flare in the sim and therefore don't qualify.....
With abated breath I wait......
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam
Only those extended on pax fleet trigger bypass pay. The freighter extensions don't so I think it is around 20 extendees causing bypass. CX are adamant they pay bypass pay to SOMEONE. How they determine who gets it has strayed away from the strict definition of our CoS though. I think their view is that you only get it if you would have passed command course so they backdate it from 3 bar. Can anyone this has happened to please PM me.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC
It would seem that our posts "crossed" as I asked some questions re by-pass on the "accountablilty" thread. I'll keep them to this thread so I am only hijacking one thread....
I have also heard that by-pass is paid only once you pass the Command Course; never had it confirmed by someone who has received the pay!!!
Not sure what the exact wording currently is... used to be "senior FO and senior SO"... if that wording remains then what the company is doing is driving a cart and horse through that clause. Further, my little brain cannot figure out what effect the command failure rate has on the payment of by-pass. Equally, cannot buy into the Freighter retirees not triggering by-pass. I am familiar with the argument that there are no other suitable candidates... for anyone who buys into that I have only 2 words.... Jack Sparrow.....
In sum the whole by-pass issue has become somewhat sordid and considering that it was a cornerstone of the proposed COS08, anyone who thought the proposed device that allow those who opposed the "raising" of retirement age to gain some form of protection from by-pass, was either a fool or deliberating misleading his colleagues.......
I have also heard that by-pass is paid only once you pass the Command Course; never had it confirmed by someone who has received the pay!!!
Not sure what the exact wording currently is... used to be "senior FO and senior SO"... if that wording remains then what the company is doing is driving a cart and horse through that clause. Further, my little brain cannot figure out what effect the command failure rate has on the payment of by-pass. Equally, cannot buy into the Freighter retirees not triggering by-pass. I am familiar with the argument that there are no other suitable candidates... for anyone who buys into that I have only 2 words.... Jack Sparrow.....
In sum the whole by-pass issue has become somewhat sordid and considering that it was a cornerstone of the proposed COS08, anyone who thought the proposed device that allow those who opposed the "raising" of retirement age to gain some form of protection from by-pass, was either a fool or deliberating misleading his colleagues.......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near By
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I would give you my take on Command By-Pass pay ....
By Pass Pay appears to be paid to the most senior eligible Officer. Eligible appears to be:
Not CAT D'ed
Not turning down the earliest course available (due to type (Airbus to 777 vv or crew compliment (Capt/ Capt)).
So although joiners from 98 are currently on Course they are not on By-Pass pay as unsuccessful Command Trainee's who have been CAT B'ed or C'ed, (be it 12 Months or 3 Years) are the most Senior and Eligible (as they are not CAT D).
So an unsuccessful Command Course Candidate, or an Officer CAT B'ed due to a bad PC, LC or Personnel incident would be eligible, and would receive By-pass pay in DOJ seniority... Currently estimated to be triggering at about 1995/1996 DOJ. (Check with Denly DON'T KNOW)
So the the guy currently on Command Course may be CAT A but he/she is not the most senior eligible Officer..... Strange system I know.
It would, however, appear that they have CAT D'ed any A scale guys (ex F/Es, Cadets) who where triggering By-Pass pay to avoid the significantly higher cost of A Scale By-Pass pay. This has resulted in it being triggered by cheaper, junior B scale Officers .... Guys who are not on Course and may not be on course in the next 36 months BUT are not CAT D'ed and therefore eligible!
Clear as mud?
By Pass Pay appears to be paid to the most senior eligible Officer. Eligible appears to be:
Not CAT D'ed
Not turning down the earliest course available (due to type (Airbus to 777 vv or crew compliment (Capt/ Capt)).
So although joiners from 98 are currently on Course they are not on By-Pass pay as unsuccessful Command Trainee's who have been CAT B'ed or C'ed, (be it 12 Months or 3 Years) are the most Senior and Eligible (as they are not CAT D).
So an unsuccessful Command Course Candidate, or an Officer CAT B'ed due to a bad PC, LC or Personnel incident would be eligible, and would receive By-pass pay in DOJ seniority... Currently estimated to be triggering at about 1995/1996 DOJ. (Check with Denly DON'T KNOW)
So the the guy currently on Command Course may be CAT A but he/she is not the most senior eligible Officer..... Strange system I know.
It would, however, appear that they have CAT D'ed any A scale guys (ex F/Es, Cadets) who where triggering By-Pass pay to avoid the significantly higher cost of A Scale By-Pass pay. This has resulted in it being triggered by cheaper, junior B scale Officers .... Guys who are not on Course and may not be on course in the next 36 months BUT are not CAT D'ed and therefore eligible!
Clear as mud?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
Lets not forget Tony the Liar's quote after the 49ers debacle, something along the lines of, "these guys need to realise they are employed in Hong Kong and therefore are not afforded the types of labour rights they have back in their home countries!"
So anyone claiming that CX are just trying to get in line with overseas labour laws are kidding themselves. Wake up people, this is about crewing!!!!!!!!
So anyone claiming that CX are just trying to get in line with overseas labour laws are kidding themselves. Wake up people, this is about crewing!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......i've realised after these past few weeks that I really don't want to commit to a career (small letters...) to this airline. I appreciate all that has been said by others on this forum. After a bit more than a year with CX....i've had enough. Although the carriers in the US have their own problems, at least as an employee you had a proper legal and administrative system to rely on. That is the one thing I can't stand here...is the continual and perpetual uncertainty of 'what is possible'. This is no way to live. Luckily, most of us ex-United guys have a callback option.....and not a minute too soon. Good luck to all of you. ATY