Bypass pay - expectation management
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Not sure
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HFX, When people have to make up their own mind when to retire they just can't do it. The fear of walking away from the salary, regardless of wealth, is just to hard. So what you end up with is most people staying right to the end or going out medically.
Sad but true.
Sad but true.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A survey was done on BA pilots about their intentions wrt retirement age. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the closer to 55 the more likely they were to extend. It seems like people always planned only to work maybe 2 or 3 years more. Its human nature I guess...always just about to leave!
The fairest solution involves fair treatment for those going beyond 55 with fair compensation for those who are bypassed. CX has saved so much in pilot remuneration with B scales and with competitor lagging salaries that it can easily afford to increase its contractual obligation to those bypassed. Still, much depends on the valuation of "lost opportunities".
The solution
Its quite simple...working beyond 55 on current terms and conditions.
Bypass pay to equivalent delayed rank and promotion to bypassed rank. That means that your second year of command bypass should be to CN2, third year to SCN1 etc and then your eventual promotion should be to appropriate rank eg SCN2. Only in this way will there be no financial penalty to CoS99 employees for CX wanting to increase RA.
I think both Raven and Albatross make good points...both A scalers and B scalers have the right to feel aggrieved. However trying to prove to each other who is more 'right' and justified is fruitless....reminds me of a monty python sketch(I think?) "Luxury! When I was a lad I used to have to get up before I went to bed...." My point is, who wins on the most aggrieved game?
I started this thread as I didn't want to see expectations 'managed down' on bypass pay. Its not up to A scalers to pay for bypass pay nor is it fair for B scalers to just 'suck it up'. If (when?) some compromise bypass deal appears, we all get one vote and then the majority of us will determine what is right and fair.
The fairest solution involves fair treatment for those going beyond 55 with fair compensation for those who are bypassed. CX has saved so much in pilot remuneration with B scales and with competitor lagging salaries that it can easily afford to increase its contractual obligation to those bypassed. Still, much depends on the valuation of "lost opportunities".
The solution
Its quite simple...working beyond 55 on current terms and conditions.
Bypass pay to equivalent delayed rank and promotion to bypassed rank. That means that your second year of command bypass should be to CN2, third year to SCN1 etc and then your eventual promotion should be to appropriate rank eg SCN2. Only in this way will there be no financial penalty to CoS99 employees for CX wanting to increase RA.
I think both Raven and Albatross make good points...both A scalers and B scalers have the right to feel aggrieved. However trying to prove to each other who is more 'right' and justified is fruitless....reminds me of a monty python sketch(I think?) "Luxury! When I was a lad I used to have to get up before I went to bed...." My point is, who wins on the most aggrieved game?
I started this thread as I didn't want to see expectations 'managed down' on bypass pay. Its not up to A scalers to pay for bypass pay nor is it fair for B scalers to just 'suck it up'. If (when?) some compromise bypass deal appears, we all get one vote and then the majority of us will determine what is right and fair.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Asia/Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make it simple Nick !
RA 65 win/win :
All on the same scale.
A-Scale incl. P fund.
Might not cost a dime compaired to the cost of over time pay, sickness, people leaving, don't care attitude and sticking to the contract.
A-scale for all July 1st.
All on the same scale.
A-Scale incl. P fund.
Might not cost a dime compaired to the cost of over time pay, sickness, people leaving, don't care attitude and sticking to the contract.
A-scale for all July 1st.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bypass pay to equivalent delayed rank and promotion to bypassed rank. That means that your second year of command bypass should be to CN2, third year to SCN1 etc and then your eventual promotion should be to appropriate rank eg SCN2. Only in this way will there be no financial penalty to CoS99 employees for CX wanting to increase RA.
This should be applied to all forms of bypass pay, included the situation where SOs are being promoted out of seniority. There is no fairness in the situation where a less senior officer reaches FO1 first, only due to being allocated the Airbus upon joining, and that he isn't being delayed by waiting for the 777 training system. At least financial equity will help compensate for the loss of career progression.
Standby, a pig just flew by the window. The lack of smog must have brought it out.... No worry, it'll contract lung cancer when the wind swings back, so won't be making any more trips.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retirement age 65, means different things to every individual pilot in CX.
To most 50+ year old senior Captain's it is a "no brainer" to continue flying beyond 55, even on "B scales", when you compare CX SC17 + benefits to the alternatives. The hassle of adapting to a different employer after decades with CX is also a significant deterrant to going elsewhere.
But to the rest of us, the delayed progression and reduced opportunities will come at different costs.
Many Captains of my generation will not be able to take advantage of anticipated basing vacancies until years later than previously expected. Worst case, the highly desirable bases such as AKL, PER, BNE, YVR, LHR etc will be rarely available for an extra 5-10 years. We will all vote against RA65, since bypass pay doesn't help our position.
Almost all F/O's and S/O's (who joined before 01/01/2008) will see their progression to command delayed. For some senior F/O's the delay will be maybe a year, but for others it could be a significant delay, maybe 5 years or so. These people are the vast majority of the CX pilot numbers, and they need significant compensation to vote away bypass pay for RA65.
It is important for all members to communicate strongly their concerns to the Committe at this time. You need to work out exactly what an increase to retirement age 65 will personally cost you, and do not sell yourselves short.
Why not consider a "softly-softly" increase to retirement age, such as a phased in increase of an extra 1 year service every 2-3 years? For example, RA 56 now, RA 57 in 2011, RA 58 in 2014 etc.
This is a major issue, so get your mates involved as well. Call and email anyone you know on the GC. If your interests are not adequetely protected and compensated, you will really live to regret this.
Why don't we just sh*t can this whole issue and stick with the current RA55/bypass pay until we have a deal on pay?
To most 50+ year old senior Captain's it is a "no brainer" to continue flying beyond 55, even on "B scales", when you compare CX SC17 + benefits to the alternatives. The hassle of adapting to a different employer after decades with CX is also a significant deterrant to going elsewhere.
But to the rest of us, the delayed progression and reduced opportunities will come at different costs.
Many Captains of my generation will not be able to take advantage of anticipated basing vacancies until years later than previously expected. Worst case, the highly desirable bases such as AKL, PER, BNE, YVR, LHR etc will be rarely available for an extra 5-10 years. We will all vote against RA65, since bypass pay doesn't help our position.
Almost all F/O's and S/O's (who joined before 01/01/2008) will see their progression to command delayed. For some senior F/O's the delay will be maybe a year, but for others it could be a significant delay, maybe 5 years or so. These people are the vast majority of the CX pilot numbers, and they need significant compensation to vote away bypass pay for RA65.
It is important for all members to communicate strongly their concerns to the Committe at this time. You need to work out exactly what an increase to retirement age 65 will personally cost you, and do not sell yourselves short.
Why not consider a "softly-softly" increase to retirement age, such as a phased in increase of an extra 1 year service every 2-3 years? For example, RA 56 now, RA 57 in 2011, RA 58 in 2014 etc.
This is a major issue, so get your mates involved as well. Call and email anyone you know on the GC. If your interests are not adequetely protected and compensated, you will really live to regret this.
Why don't we just sh*t can this whole issue and stick with the current RA55/bypass pay until we have a deal on pay?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with NC's suggestion re the pay but obviously the company won't. However, if we could come to a deal like that but agreed that bypass pay would only be paid to an F/O who's spent 9 years in the company then there could be a possibility of agreement. After all, NR keeps on telling us that there will be little change to command times should the retirement age increase, so it will be a no cost option if he has belief in what he's writing. His missive a week or so ago said " the company is genuinely committed to significant growth over the next 10 years and that a change in retirement age will not unduly slow their career progression" so let him put his money where his mouth is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bypass pay
jonathon, good post!
Parrabellum, I can answer your first question. Unlike SOs, all FOs are entitled or qualified for bypass pay UNLESS they are cat D. I know of some FOs who have been getting bypass for years as they wait for a chance to be reassessed from C/B to A.
As to the second question, I believe if you were meant to get it you keep it till you are no longer qualified. I have heard some 'urban legends' of people having to repay bypass - if this has happened please post here or PM me. In the past CX has been pretty rigorous in paying it to whom it believes is entitled to it.
I think the urgan legends have originated from CX delaying paying bypass pay until it knows who is entitled to it. This would occur if more candidates are on command course than there are extendees. This would happen quite often as most of the extendee entitled FOs on bypass pay could be cat B or C leaving only a few extendees generating bypass pay for current command upgrades.
Choosing a later course over an earlier course CX interprets as the candidate not being entitled to bypass pay between the course dates, even though that is not strictly iaw our CoS. Before you rant and rave about this think about based FOs who stay as FOs for lifestyle. Should they get command bypass pay if they have deliberately knocked back a Hong Kong command course? The CX view is that any voluntary delay to your command removes your eligibility to bypass pay until your actual command course start date!
I believe the same principle is applied for SO to FO upgrades. As far as I am aware, SOs can choose to upgrade on whatever course they want. Where the disputes arises is from the availability of 'long' or 'short' courses. This is not in the principle or intent of bypass pay, IMO, but as long as some SO is getting bypass pay the aircrew body as a whole hasn't suffered pecuniary loss. The wording is vague enough to allow much latitude in how CX interprets the bypass pay provision. With pilots likely to get up to a year or so of FO bypass pay and up to 3-5 years of command bypass pay, for the most affected, it is definitely a section of our CoS that needs to be cleared up and made transparent!
Clear as mud?
Parrabellum, I can answer your first question. Unlike SOs, all FOs are entitled or qualified for bypass pay UNLESS they are cat D. I know of some FOs who have been getting bypass for years as they wait for a chance to be reassessed from C/B to A.
As to the second question, I believe if you were meant to get it you keep it till you are no longer qualified. I have heard some 'urban legends' of people having to repay bypass - if this has happened please post here or PM me. In the past CX has been pretty rigorous in paying it to whom it believes is entitled to it.
I think the urgan legends have originated from CX delaying paying bypass pay until it knows who is entitled to it. This would occur if more candidates are on command course than there are extendees. This would happen quite often as most of the extendee entitled FOs on bypass pay could be cat B or C leaving only a few extendees generating bypass pay for current command upgrades.
Choosing a later course over an earlier course CX interprets as the candidate not being entitled to bypass pay between the course dates, even though that is not strictly iaw our CoS. Before you rant and rave about this think about based FOs who stay as FOs for lifestyle. Should they get command bypass pay if they have deliberately knocked back a Hong Kong command course? The CX view is that any voluntary delay to your command removes your eligibility to bypass pay until your actual command course start date!
I believe the same principle is applied for SO to FO upgrades. As far as I am aware, SOs can choose to upgrade on whatever course they want. Where the disputes arises is from the availability of 'long' or 'short' courses. This is not in the principle or intent of bypass pay, IMO, but as long as some SO is getting bypass pay the aircrew body as a whole hasn't suffered pecuniary loss. The wording is vague enough to allow much latitude in how CX interprets the bypass pay provision. With pilots likely to get up to a year or so of FO bypass pay and up to 3-5 years of command bypass pay, for the most affected, it is definitely a section of our CoS that needs to be cleared up and made transparent!
Clear as mud?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that extending to 65 from 55 will probably delay most people's captain upgrade to at least 3 to 5 years.
If you consider that the company continues expanding and that some people will not extend/make it to 65, then I think 4 years is a good average.
We then take this 4 years and add it to every FO's seniority who joined before 2008. This means that if you are year 3 SFO, you now jump to year 7, and so on. This takes care of everyone who would be dalayed an upgrade.
If you are an SO, then you assume 3 years on SO scale, then the normal progression to FO scales. So SO year 1 would jump to SFO 1.
Does that make sense? Seems perfectly fair to me.
If you consider that the company continues expanding and that some people will not extend/make it to 65, then I think 4 years is a good average.
We then take this 4 years and add it to every FO's seniority who joined before 2008. This means that if you are year 3 SFO, you now jump to year 7, and so on. This takes care of everyone who would be dalayed an upgrade.
If you are an SO, then you assume 3 years on SO scale, then the normal progression to FO scales. So SO year 1 would jump to SFO 1.
Does that make sense? Seems perfectly fair to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest rumours
I hope what I have heard is not true, but it seems our AOA leadership is happily supporting a proposal for A scales to take a little cut in salary so that we can all work beyond 55. Its ok though, you will only have to work an extra 3-5 months past 55 to recover the paycuts.
Its not all bad news...there will be some payrise for B scalers and C+Ters - not sure how you can give a C+Ter a paycut and a payrise at the same time?
I guess the zoologist is trying to get as many deals completed as he can before the next GC changeover!
Its not all bad news...there will be some payrise for B scalers and C+Ters - not sure how you can give a C+Ter a paycut and a payrise at the same time?
I guess the zoologist is trying to get as many deals completed as he can before the next GC changeover!
What will it be next year, 2 crew ULR split duty......
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Not sure
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I guess all this would have to go to a vote and from where I'm sitting it would struggle to get up.
As far as the upgrade delay goes, I estimate that with RA65 in place, it will add an extra 7 years. Reason being, given the upward trend of oil prices I'm doubtful that CX or any other airline will expand significantly in the foreseeable future.
As far as the upgrade delay goes, I estimate that with RA65 in place, it will add an extra 7 years. Reason being, given the upward trend of oil prices I'm doubtful that CX or any other airline will expand significantly in the foreseeable future.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
christn,
not sure. Still at the rumour stage...discussions between AOA and CX on this topic Mon-Wed next week. Probably on earnings after 55 I suspect but that is complete conjecture.
Max86,
you could be surprised. Lets say that CX says you will get 5% backdated to 1/1/08, another 5-10% next Jan, increase in C+ters allowance and then a paycut for A scales after 55. Tell me now how many people would vote against it! Less than 400 A scalers out of 2300 pilots, and of those 400 A scalers many are in C+T and might vote for it as it would lead to a payrise and the ability to work past 55 on B+ scales! I can't see the 1900 B and C scalers being overly concerned with reduced remuneration beyond 55 for A scales.
So yes it will be up to a popular vote but I am sure it will be presented as a "your only chance at a payrise so don't vote no" option - bit like the last 49ers vote. Management only have this GC to negotiate with for another 5 months so I suspect a few more deals will be forthcoming!
not sure. Still at the rumour stage...discussions between AOA and CX on this topic Mon-Wed next week. Probably on earnings after 55 I suspect but that is complete conjecture.
Max86,
you could be surprised. Lets say that CX says you will get 5% backdated to 1/1/08, another 5-10% next Jan, increase in C+ters allowance and then a paycut for A scales after 55. Tell me now how many people would vote against it! Less than 400 A scalers out of 2300 pilots, and of those 400 A scalers many are in C+T and might vote for it as it would lead to a payrise and the ability to work past 55 on B+ scales! I can't see the 1900 B and C scalers being overly concerned with reduced remuneration beyond 55 for A scales.
So yes it will be up to a popular vote but I am sure it will be presented as a "your only chance at a payrise so don't vote no" option - bit like the last 49ers vote. Management only have this GC to negotiate with for another 5 months so I suspect a few more deals will be forthcoming!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonathon68 - you wrote:
How does this help the most affected - ie most junior guys?? All it does is unevenly spread the pain. Which won't do anything to reunite the crew body.
Why not consider a "softly-softly" increase to retirement age, such as a phased in increase of an extra 1 year service every 2-3 years? For example, RA 56 now, RA 57 in 2011, RA 58 in 2014 etc.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Not sure
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always appreciate you posts NC, not sure I agree with you on this one. The way I see it is that at most, CX would offer about 10% and based on previous offers even that is probably ambitious. In addition it won't be an immediate offer, it would be staged.
Hardly think this type of money comes anywhere near compensating the junior guys for the hit they will take to their careers and projected earnings.
Some would say that having the option to work until 65 represents some form of financial value. I am of the view that junior guys simply can't plan that far out these days. Telling a guy in his 30's that he may get some financial gain 20+ years down the track is a bit of a joke,
Hardly think this type of money comes anywhere near compensating the junior guys for the hit they will take to their careers and projected earnings.
Some would say that having the option to work until 65 represents some form of financial value. I am of the view that junior guys simply can't plan that far out these days. Telling a guy in his 30's that he may get some financial gain 20+ years down the track is a bit of a joke,
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just keep things the way they are. Let us junior guys take advantage of bypass pay, which in already in our contracts. I have a very bad feeling about the outcome of this.
box
box
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the AOA presents to you, you can always decline it. Remember everyone is on an individual contract.
If you are not happy with it, write to the GMA stating you will not accept the new change to your contract.
If you have the courage that is.
If you are not happy with it, write to the GMA stating you will not accept the new change to your contract.
If you have the courage that is.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Not sure
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bloogs
Courage?? Why would you think anyone would fear writing a letter to the AOA.
If you think people fear you or anyone else associated the AOA you are sadly mistaken.
Courage?? Why would you think anyone would fear writing a letter to the AOA.
If you think people fear you or anyone else associated the AOA you are sadly mistaken.
