Extension Post 55
I find it difficult to comprehend the unprecedented scale of this climbdown by PW. Did he really miss such an obvious showstopper as "doesn't apply to non-UK registered aircraft". WHAT!!
All that work and time taken to plan (sic) courses, Fleet numbers, etc etc and all because the AOA introduce a fast swerver that hasn't been adequately considered by GMA and his team.
Good luck explaining that one to the Swire Group let alone to your Senior pilots (hardly any of whom are in the AOA.)
Only a Company scared of something makes a point of unnecessarily doubling the profit share and backing away from their own plan in such a humiliating way.
What would that be I wonder?
Not short of crews are we perchance???
All that work and time taken to plan (sic) courses, Fleet numbers, etc etc and all because the AOA introduce a fast swerver that hasn't been adequately considered by GMA and his team.
Good luck explaining that one to the Swire Group let alone to your Senior pilots (hardly any of whom are in the AOA.)
Only a Company scared of something makes a point of unnecessarily doubling the profit share and backing away from their own plan in such a humiliating way.
What would that be I wonder?
Not short of crews are we perchance???
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can still extend anyone they want, as they have in the past. The degraded terms have not deterred many from extending in the past. The only winners I see on this are UK based FOs who would have missed out on bypass pay - but only those that joined before 1/1/08, the ones that joined after are still screwed.
Someone please explain to me what 'win' I am missing?
Someone please explain to me what 'win' I am missing?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mostly Harmless
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never met PW but everything I read that he spews forth leads me to believe he has no friends. In this exciting episode, we got:
"...we now have little option but to accept the HKAOA’s position under TUPE and retain a Normal Retirement Age of 55 in the UK contracts of all officers employed under CoS ’99..."
So all of a sudden, TUPE was the AOA's doing and all the 55+ guys can blame the AOA? If it wasn't for the 49ers, all this wouldn't have come to pass.
BB
"...we now have little option but to accept the HKAOA’s position under TUPE and retain a Normal Retirement Age of 55 in the UK contracts of all officers employed under CoS ’99..."
So all of a sudden, TUPE was the AOA's doing and all the 55+ guys can blame the AOA? If it wasn't for the 49ers, all this wouldn't have come to pass.
BB
Last edited by Buttie Box; 8th Mar 2008 at 11:50.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC
I think the "win" you are missing can be demonstrated by the following;
Please don't think that I have experience in giving sweeties to children, but it involves giving sweeties to children. If you offer to give a child 2 options either 4 sweets for them and 10 to their older and rival sibling, OR 2 sweets each; the immature mind will always happily accept the 2nd option as depriving the rival an additional 6 sweets is seen as a "win".
Obviously, the mature mind would elect the first option as 4 sweets are better than 2. The intelligent mind, however, would enthuse about option 1 as children in general are receiving 14 sweets, which is much better than children receiving only 4 and the other 10 going in a fund to be fertively distributed by the "sweet management" as some form of hitherto undisclosed bonus...
Oops... sorry got carried away.. sugar rush.. too many sweets...
Please don't think that I have experience in giving sweeties to children, but it involves giving sweeties to children. If you offer to give a child 2 options either 4 sweets for them and 10 to their older and rival sibling, OR 2 sweets each; the immature mind will always happily accept the 2nd option as depriving the rival an additional 6 sweets is seen as a "win".
Obviously, the mature mind would elect the first option as 4 sweets are better than 2. The intelligent mind, however, would enthuse about option 1 as children in general are receiving 14 sweets, which is much better than children receiving only 4 and the other 10 going in a fund to be fertively distributed by the "sweet management" as some form of hitherto undisclosed bonus...
Oops... sorry got carried away.. sugar rush.. too many sweets...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kenfoggo
Tis an excellent question....
I suspect the answer will be provided by an agrieved but motivated 55+ with a huge set of danglies and a equally huge bucket of cash.....
Does such an animal exist?
I suspect the answer will be provided by an agrieved but motivated 55+ with a huge set of danglies and a equally huge bucket of cash.....
Does such an animal exist?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What The Age Law Actually Says
A quick google reveals:
I do not think the AOA is arguing that the law does not apply: it certainly does and that is why the company has had to move on shore and pay tax. Thing is, when you apply the law, you find that pilots flying non UK A/C are excluded.
Milly
The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
Meaning of employment and contract work at establishment in Great Britain
10.—(1) For the purposes of this Part (“the relevant purposes”), employment is to be regarded as being at an establishment in Great Britain if the employee—
(a) does his work wholly or partly in Great Britain; or ..........
(3) The reference to “employment” in paragraph (1) includes—
(a) employment on board a ship only if the ship is registered at a port of registry in Great Britain, and
(b) employment on an aircraft or hovercraft only if the aircraft or hovercraft is registered in the United Kingdom and operated by a person who has his principal place of business, or is ordinarily resident, in Great Britain.
Meaning of employment and contract work at establishment in Great Britain
10.—(1) For the purposes of this Part (“the relevant purposes”), employment is to be regarded as being at an establishment in Great Britain if the employee—
(a) does his work wholly or partly in Great Britain; or ..........
(3) The reference to “employment” in paragraph (1) includes—
(a) employment on board a ship only if the ship is registered at a port of registry in Great Britain, and
(b) employment on an aircraft or hovercraft only if the aircraft or hovercraft is registered in the United Kingdom and operated by a person who has his principal place of business, or is ordinarily resident, in Great Britain.
Milly
And CX in all their wisdom (sic again) didn't find a Barrister who knew the current application of the law???
Too extraordinary for even me to believe.
Something else is afoot for sure and it aint 12 inches!!!
Too extraordinary for even me to believe.
Something else is afoot for sure and it aint 12 inches!!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay has won nothing - this is just the first salvo.
If negotiated correctly (and no backdown) by the AOA then we can all win from this. Those A scalers that feel agrieved are justified - their expectations were based on what the employer communicated but am sure many saw the injustice for the junior crew and those that did not were walking around with their head up their ass. In the near term I believe A scalers too will win from a properly negotiated position. Flt Ops is obviously concerned about the fall out from this latest development and so have thrown 15.5% into the pot for the C & T and extendees on the Frtr fleet to stem resignations-they are doing this because they are scared of the ramifications---- not because they are benovelent.
Observation - GMA's wording "....... as a result we now have little option but to accept the AOA's posn........" is a subtle attempt at painting the AOA as the bad guy in this battle. This is not the case. Had the Company got proper legal advice then they would not be in such a position that they now have, in the minimium, to pay an extra 15.5% in the near term for the same productivity that they got last week.
There is only one party with egg on their face.
Finally, I urge all of you (AOA member or not) to fill out the upcomming survey from the AOA into crew's thoughts and expectations. You may find it an eye opener.
If negotiated correctly (and no backdown) by the AOA then we can all win from this. Those A scalers that feel agrieved are justified - their expectations were based on what the employer communicated but am sure many saw the injustice for the junior crew and those that did not were walking around with their head up their ass. In the near term I believe A scalers too will win from a properly negotiated position. Flt Ops is obviously concerned about the fall out from this latest development and so have thrown 15.5% into the pot for the C & T and extendees on the Frtr fleet to stem resignations-they are doing this because they are scared of the ramifications---- not because they are benovelent.
Observation - GMA's wording "....... as a result we now have little option but to accept the AOA's posn........" is a subtle attempt at painting the AOA as the bad guy in this battle. This is not the case. Had the Company got proper legal advice then they would not be in such a position that they now have, in the minimium, to pay an extra 15.5% in the near term for the same productivity that they got last week.
There is only one party with egg on their face.
Finally, I urge all of you (AOA member or not) to fill out the upcomming survey from the AOA into crew's thoughts and expectations. You may find it an eye opener.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay win once again, not the AOA.
Thats about it.
Thats about it.
Those expectations haven't changed. Just because you would have benefited from something that improved your situation, and now that is taken away, it does not mean that Cathay have won. It just means that the situation has remained the same.
A real win would have been if Cathay negotiated an ammendment to retirement age that benefited the pilots as well as Cathay. That has yet to happen.
Can someone answer this conundrum?
If a CX management pilot is dismissed for not doing what is written down
which managers should also be dismissed for the same offence
re GMA CoS 08 Update - 08OCT07
If a CX management pilot is dismissed for not doing what is written down
which managers should also be dismissed for the same offence
re GMA CoS 08 Update - 08OCT07
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Very small apatment
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe the arrogance of these A scale captains bleating about RA 55. Most of the senior C&T's in HKG have been accepting almost any CoS to stay on just so they can carry on playing sugar daddy to their 30 year old children or not have to stay at home and talk to their wife. CX is the only life they have and they will sign anything to stay on knowing the'yre a sad old nobody when they can't hide behind their 4 stripes anymore. How about the young S/O's and F/O's waiting for an upgrade. Move on Grand daddy!
Troll Alert
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CmS (what a t*sser):
"I can't believe the arrogance of these A scale captains bleating about RA 55. Most of the senior C&T's in HKG have been accepting almost any CoS to stay on just so they can carry on playing sugar daddy to their 30 year old children or not have to stay at home and talk to their wife"
Ummmm sorry....what's your point?
"I can't believe the arrogance of these A scale captains bleating about RA 55. Most of the senior C&T's in HKG have been accepting almost any CoS to stay on just so they can carry on playing sugar daddy to their 30 year old children or not have to stay at home and talk to their wife"
Ummmm sorry....what's your point?