Bypass pay - expectation management
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the "my command is now going to be delayed for x years" brigade how many of you joined during the dispute? For those that did join during the dispute then you do not really have anything to complain about as "we told you so".
Also please tell me where it says in your contract that you will get a command after 7-8 years?
Also please tell me where it says in your contract that you will get a command after 7-8 years?
iceman50
It is one thing having your command delayed 1-2 years because of 911 & SARS. It is a completely different matter having your command delayed because the company is wanting to change your contract. If the company wants age 65, there is a provision for that in our contract that allows them to do that right now. It’s called bypass pay. Of course they don’t want that now as it doesn’t suite them, i.e. they want their cake and eat it too.
PS: No I didn’t join during the ban.
It is one thing having your command delayed 1-2 years because of 911 & SARS. It is a completely different matter having your command delayed because the company is wanting to change your contract. If the company wants age 65, there is a provision for that in our contract that allows them to do that right now. It’s called bypass pay. Of course they don’t want that now as it doesn’t suite them, i.e. they want their cake and eat it too.
PS: No I didn’t join during the ban.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...many aspects of our contracts have been changed arbitrarily by the company. For the A scalers, it was their expectations of a market leading salary. For B scalers/new joiners, it is now time to command. Either we all fight together....or we will hang together. Not much doubt as to which option will prevail...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read between the lines
Apple Tree:
I for one would like to see the contract language that guaranteed you market leading salary ? If it was not written that way exactly in your contract and was only an "expectation" then you cannot really compare it to the retirement age issue. The retirement age was written into our contracts. It affects all manner of the job. No matter what your prediction of how it will increase time to command, it will increase.
Please let me be clear I am on your side when you express concern over your pay not keeping up to the industry. However please do not muddy the issue of retirement by trying to compare apples to oranges.
Also, try and stay positive. If the company does not offer a reasonable deal to accept retirement age 65, then we vote no. If it is changed without agreement then that is something that can easily be defended in court. Also we can wait under the current contract until the courts decide. Even if it takes years !!
Pee Bee:
I sympathise with you that those that joined under the ban, have little or no grounds to object to anything. They should be dealt with as a separate group on their own with the company.
However there are plenty of us that did not join under that ban that are directly affected by this. So for us please distinguish between other politically sensitive groups !!
Ice Man:
This is not about a guarantee of command. However there is legal, ethical and moral grounds to defend the argument that many officers will be disadvantaged by an increase in retirement age. In any situation this will decrease career earnings on a per year percentage (ie you will work longer but the total amount divided by the number of years worked will be LESS per year)
FG
For the A scalers, it was their expectations of a market leading salary.
Please let me be clear I am on your side when you express concern over your pay not keeping up to the industry. However please do not muddy the issue of retirement by trying to compare apples to oranges.
Also, try and stay positive. If the company does not offer a reasonable deal to accept retirement age 65, then we vote no. If it is changed without agreement then that is something that can easily be defended in court. Also we can wait under the current contract until the courts decide. Even if it takes years !!
Pee Bee:
I sympathise with you that those that joined under the ban, have little or no grounds to object to anything. They should be dealt with as a separate group on their own with the company.
However there are plenty of us that did not join under that ban that are directly affected by this. So for us please distinguish between other politically sensitive groups !!
Ice Man:
This is not about a guarantee of command. However there is legal, ethical and moral grounds to defend the argument that many officers will be disadvantaged by an increase in retirement age. In any situation this will decrease career earnings on a per year percentage (ie you will work longer but the total amount divided by the number of years worked will be LESS per year)
FG
Last edited by Five Green; 18th Apr 2008 at 17:59.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apple Tree Yard (how that brings back memories of John Swire welcoming me to the company...).... I suggest that you may be a little misinformed. 20-20 hindsight being a marvelous thing, if you reject age 65 and maintain the age 55 limit, there is still nothing to stop the company offering age 65 on an individual basis, as they did with B scales, C scales, COS 08, ASL etc. etc. etc.
Vote for what you want, but its what THEY want that counts.......
Perhaps an influx of over 55 guys from OASIS over the next few weeks might concentrate your mind on the problem.
Vote for what you want, but its what THEY want that counts.......
Perhaps an influx of over 55 guys from OASIS over the next few weeks might concentrate your mind on the problem.
Kitsune
That is true but they have to pay “Bypass Pay”. This is what they are trying to avoid by negotiating with the AOA right now. If we don’t accept the deal they “MUST” under our contract pay “Bypass Pay” when our number comes up.
there is still nothing to stop the company offering age 65 on an individual basis
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan has it exactly correct. If they want to continue hiring DEFO, or extending captains beyond age 55, then so be it. My contract states very clearly that in these instances, I, as well as many others, will receive bypass pay to compensate. Now the union is negotiating to change this? Why? What are we going to gain that will make up the difference for the loss of this section? I highly doubt I, or many others, will make as much as under a new contract as the current B scale. And no, I didn't join under the ban either.
box
box
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So as soon as all these Oasis guys turn up for their 'fast exit' courses (all on 'till 65 according to their letter of offer) everyone will be paid bypass pay as per their contracts? Or as I said before, is this an example of a type of individual 'new' contract to age 65?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitsune, lets see how well the truth flies. Having just got off the phone to one of the unfortunate Oasis guys there is no letter-yet. The VERBAL offer is a "rapid exit" command on a hkg base for VETA. Now the last time I looked the normal retirement age for VETA was 55. The same course this guy is going to be offered must be advertised firstly to all employees who are considered "suitable" (open to abuse). This has no bearing on the discussion of the efforts by the company to raise the NORMAL retirement age to 65. 404Titan's view is correct. Until an agreement is reached and voted in by the AOA membership then bypass pay compensation is a legal requirement. Your "individual 'new' contract to age 65" does not exist at this time.
Fire Wall,
I understand the HKG " local terms" freighter contract is on offer only.
This enables working to RA65 (BPP is already in dispute) with a $24,000 "special" allowance (read housing) for Captains only. All commands are open to bid from any CX pilot then any suitable "rapid" commands will be offered.
I am very disappointed that Oasis has not been rescued. All the guys deserved much better.
I understand the HKG " local terms" freighter contract is on offer only.
This enables working to RA65 (BPP is already in dispute) with a $24,000 "special" allowance (read housing) for Captains only. All commands are open to bid from any CX pilot then any suitable "rapid" commands will be offered.
I am very disappointed that Oasis has not been rescued. All the guys deserved much better.
Last edited by BusyB; 19th Apr 2008 at 13:53. Reason: correction to $24,000
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB is correct, that's exactly how the truth 'flies'... and which makes my point as advertised......
Anything that helps out the Oasis guys, (especially those who bought their homes in HKG) has got to be good
Anything that helps out the Oasis guys, (especially those who bought their homes in HKG) has got to be good
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ceduna
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BYPASS pay
It's simple really- the company access you suitable for command just before your command course( 1 day or 1 weekwhatever ) and thats how they get around paying bypass pay- do you think they will pay a f/o command pay for 2 or 3 years ! You people haven't been here long enough to know how they operate.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routetuner
The only F/O's not given bypass pay are those who are aSSessed Cat "D" or those who've turned down a command course. It's in the CoS and unlikely to be messed with now as it's also in the UK CoS.
What's also interesting is that there is no mention of freighter commands not triggering bypass! The company may claim that the FACA has been replaced by "company policy" but under UK employment law a company are not allowed to degrade your CoS by introducing a new "policy" that rips you off for several thousand pounds a year without your agreement.
The only F/O's not given bypass pay are those who are aSSessed Cat "D" or those who've turned down a command course. It's in the CoS and unlikely to be messed with now as it's also in the UK CoS.
What's also interesting is that there is no mention of freighter commands not triggering bypass! The company may claim that the FACA has been replaced by "company policy" but under UK employment law a company are not allowed to degrade your CoS by introducing a new "policy" that rips you off for several thousand pounds a year without your agreement.
that's right boys..employ ALL the oasis guys as FO's and upgrade them after a couple of weeks...did dah!! no bypass pay required...beautiful as usual.
