AOA Survey
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Britain
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB
>hope you don't play the horses. You're wrong
You're right BusyB and I apologise for being wrong.
You're an A scaler, a GC negotiator, YVR based, and joined Sep89.
Still not sure about 14 years to command though...2003?
No don't play horses only donkeys.
You're right BusyB and I apologise for being wrong.
You're an A scaler, a GC negotiator, YVR based, and joined Sep89.
Still not sure about 14 years to command though...2003?
No don't play horses only donkeys.
Last edited by simplex; 4th Apr 2008 at 09:50.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOA is not the bad guy - we are the AOA. If you don't like where we are going then say something or do something.
The ASL first integration has added 3 years, this will be long enough for age 65 to add another 5 years, which will be long enough for KA integration to add another 5 years................
Lets be honest, none of this will have any effect on any skipper or most of the GC in the AOA so why should they care. Surely the obvious "do something" is to get everyone who joined CX in 2000 or later out of the AOA if they're in it, and more importantly into a representative body of 1500ish members.
Can't say that anything would be achieved but when the company meets with the pilot representatives, and the company outlines what it wants, and the AOA outlines what it wants (jobs on the pax fleet for it's freighter mates, age 65 for it's skippers, CX pax commands for it's DPA mates etc....), there would be a representative present for 1500 junior CX pilots to say they're possibly a little unhappy.
Wins all round. The junior pilots group get a say and can fight as a unit, it may not be much but it's better than nothing. The AOA never gets a new member again, looses a few hundred annoying junior members and can happily pursue age 65 for the good of it's own, and the company gets to hear from both the AOA and the JPG as to what they want.
Thanks NC, couldn't have thought of it without you
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stillalbatross
You have some strange views...
Ive asked this before of you and didn't get a substantive answer; for the second time..How did the first ASL integration add to your command time? If you joined before 1 Jan 2000; you are senior to them and get first "crack" at a pax command. If you joined after; you are Junior. How is this unfair? Anyone can apply for a freighter command; senior most suitable.... Some (ahem) 3 have done it from their first day in the company.
You float the idea of non-Captains breaking away and forming a union. Non- Captains out-number Captains, so by your theory Non-Captains should join the AOA and under "one man-one vote" load the GC with like minded individuals.
I am not sure where you get your information from regarding CX Industrial Relations.... but I would change sources pretty quick....
Ive asked this before of you and didn't get a substantive answer; for the second time..How did the first ASL integration add to your command time? If you joined before 1 Jan 2000; you are senior to them and get first "crack" at a pax command. If you joined after; you are Junior. How is this unfair? Anyone can apply for a freighter command; senior most suitable.... Some (ahem) 3 have done it from their first day in the company.
You float the idea of non-Captains breaking away and forming a union. Non- Captains out-number Captains, so by your theory Non-Captains should join the AOA and under "one man-one vote" load the GC with like minded individuals.
I am not sure where you get your information from regarding CX Industrial Relations.... but I would change sources pretty quick....
stillalbatross
Seems to me that the AOA is being slagged off by the junior pilots for being an A-scale GC and the senior pilots for being a Junior pilot GC!!?
Maybe we're doing the best possible and are getting it about right
Maybe we're doing the best possible and are getting it about right
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stillalbatross
The AOA is a disparate group; A scalers, B scalers, freighter pilots, LEPs, based etc etc. There is almost nothing that can be done that doesn't inevitably favour one group over another. The CPU was formed to continue on with the aim of re-employment of the 49ers and and seeking greater legal clarity of our contract (well thats how I see them). Considering how major an event the 49ers was to our history it is disappointing that so few people have joined the CPU. To me it demonstrates that our best hope of success in all issues is within one semi-cohesive body. So whilst many might like to start a whole new union, the AOA is the best option right now, IMO.
GC democracy?
The AOA GC is self selected. In my time here at CX there was only one occasion where I had to actually choose amongst a surplus of GC candidates and only two presidential elections. So if you don't like what it is doing or where it is going, then make sure you or someone of your ilk runs for a GC or presidential position in the next GC. From memory I think nominations are in May or June and elections in July or August - I am sure BusyB will clarify.
So when I state you should 'say or do something', I suggest the best and most effective way is within the framework of the current AOA structure. If you really think you can get 1100+ people to join a new union then by all means set one up.
GC 2008-09
If we all committed to doing one or two years in the AOA in our career here, we would have over 100 candidates for the coming GC elections - that would mean over five candidates per position.
With that sort of candidature we would all ensure we only selected those whose views were in tune with our own. There could be no more calls of unrepresentative GCs.
Almost half of the last few GCs have been based and or commuting pilots so do not let that 'excuse' stop you or your friends from being nominated.
Regardless of who is in the GC, remember they operate within a parsimonious corporate framework. We work for a company that thinks 3% is an acceptable payrise after 7 years vs over 40% for EK and over 20% for QF. We work for a company that trumpets a C scale payrise of 6% which results in the C scale(Cos08) only being a 20+% paycut vs CoS99!
Chamberlain got us 'peace in our time' as he did not have the national will for confrontation. If you wish to achieve much you must risk much. Fortunately the 'much' you must risk is becoming less and less valuable. CX may have some 'lost opportunities', but many ex CX pilots are seeking 'better opportunities'.
CX - its just a job!
GC democracy?
The AOA GC is self selected. In my time here at CX there was only one occasion where I had to actually choose amongst a surplus of GC candidates and only two presidential elections. So if you don't like what it is doing or where it is going, then make sure you or someone of your ilk runs for a GC or presidential position in the next GC. From memory I think nominations are in May or June and elections in July or August - I am sure BusyB will clarify.
So when I state you should 'say or do something', I suggest the best and most effective way is within the framework of the current AOA structure. If you really think you can get 1100+ people to join a new union then by all means set one up.
GC 2008-09
If we all committed to doing one or two years in the AOA in our career here, we would have over 100 candidates for the coming GC elections - that would mean over five candidates per position.
With that sort of candidature we would all ensure we only selected those whose views were in tune with our own. There could be no more calls of unrepresentative GCs.
Almost half of the last few GCs have been based and or commuting pilots so do not let that 'excuse' stop you or your friends from being nominated.
Regardless of who is in the GC, remember they operate within a parsimonious corporate framework. We work for a company that thinks 3% is an acceptable payrise after 7 years vs over 40% for EK and over 20% for QF. We work for a company that trumpets a C scale payrise of 6% which results in the C scale(Cos08) only being a 20+% paycut vs CoS99!
Chamberlain got us 'peace in our time' as he did not have the national will for confrontation. If you wish to achieve much you must risk much. Fortunately the 'much' you must risk is becoming less and less valuable. CX may have some 'lost opportunities', but many ex CX pilots are seeking 'better opportunities'.
CX - its just a job!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Around 1996 CX decided to back door the seniority list by having DECs. They did this by separating the freighter flying from pax flying. In 1999 union negotiations CX/AOA gave the freighter pilots a ONCE and ONCE ONLY chance to reintegrate into CX mainline, wef 1/1/00. Most took that chance. As part of that deal CX mainline pilots could refuse to fly the freighter due to CRM issues between CX mainline and ASL.
Since 2000, CX has had a lot of trouble manning the freighter so it decided to renege on a deal that was "binding in honour only" and give the remaining ASL employees a second "ONCE and ONCE ONLY" chance to come across to CX mainline wef 1/1/08. I think the offer was, in Godfather terms, 'an offer too good to refuse'. By doing this CX mainline pilots could no longer refuse to fly the freighter as there are no CRM issues when you all fly for one big happy company! It is win-win for CX. They don't pay bypass pay for the new CNs even though they are on the mainline seniority list and many are over 55. With a stroke of their omnipotent pen they have removed any lingering CRM issues and now the freighter can be manned by A scale CNs on the 400 - thus allowing CX to save face on the whole 'money saving' exercise of setting up ASL in the first place.
So we have two groups of ex ASL employees who have joining dates of 1/1/00 and 1/1/08.
Clear as mud?
Since 2000, CX has had a lot of trouble manning the freighter so it decided to renege on a deal that was "binding in honour only" and give the remaining ASL employees a second "ONCE and ONCE ONLY" chance to come across to CX mainline wef 1/1/08. I think the offer was, in Godfather terms, 'an offer too good to refuse'. By doing this CX mainline pilots could no longer refuse to fly the freighter as there are no CRM issues when you all fly for one big happy company! It is win-win for CX. They don't pay bypass pay for the new CNs even though they are on the mainline seniority list and many are over 55. With a stroke of their omnipotent pen they have removed any lingering CRM issues and now the freighter can be manned by A scale CNs on the 400 - thus allowing CX to save face on the whole 'money saving' exercise of setting up ASL in the first place.
So we have two groups of ex ASL employees who have joining dates of 1/1/00 and 1/1/08.
Clear as mud?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least our competitors will be getting the same bat (regreased I hope). A mate who works for DHL had the unpleasant surprise of being invited to attend a meeting to introduce a certain "Captain" O'G**vey, who had been brought it to "streamline" the operation..........expect a major influx of disgruntled DHL pilots soon......(how did The Management know?)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have some strange views...
Ive asked this before of you and didn't get a substantive answer; for the second time..How did the first ASL integration add to your command time? .
Ive asked this before of you and didn't get a substantive answer; for the second time..How did the first ASL integration add to your command time? .
AOA was made aware of this by the company, that adding 100-odd freighter pilots on a single day disadvantaged pax joiners and overnight added considerably to command time. AOA decided this was distant future and irrelevant.
I am not sure where you get your information from regarding CX Industrial Relations.... but I would change sources pretty quick....
You float the idea of non-Captains breaking away and forming a union. Non- Captains out-number Captains, so by your theory Non-Captains should join the AOA and under "one man-one vote" load the GC with like minded individuals.
If, somehow, I loaded up the AOA GC with post '99 joiners there wouldn't be a captain amongst us and even I can see this wouldn't work. Though I would argue there would be far more equality and understanding and perhaps the more senior members would see the difficulties junior members are facing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilalbatross
CX did lots of hiring in 98 and 99 on the pax fleet
Actually no.... CX was coming out of the Asian Financial Crisis and there was not a lot of SO's hired. Equally ASL took a modest number in 98 and only about 4 in 99.
You appear to be saying seniority should be date of interview..... not date of joining...... interesting concept.....
And who ended up on the pax fleet with a command even though that's not the job they interviewed for or (I assume) were expecting.
On the 1 Jan 2000 I resigned from ASL and joined Veta at the bottom of the Seniority List; my expectations changed. Why should myself (or the AOA for that matter) have any obligations to protect people who haven't joined the company yet.....!!
Like I said... you have some strange views
Actually no.... CX was coming out of the Asian Financial Crisis and there was not a lot of SO's hired. Equally ASL took a modest number in 98 and only about 4 in 99.
You appear to be saying seniority should be date of interview..... not date of joining...... interesting concept.....
And who ended up on the pax fleet with a command even though that's not the job they interviewed for or (I assume) were expecting.
On the 1 Jan 2000 I resigned from ASL and joined Veta at the bottom of the Seniority List; my expectations changed. Why should myself (or the AOA for that matter) have any obligations to protect people who haven't joined the company yet.....!!
Like I said... you have some strange views
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually no.... CX was coming out of the Asian Financial Crisis and there was not a lot of SO's hired. Equally ASL took a modest number in 98 and only about 4 in 99.
You appear to be saying seniority should be date of interview..... not date of joining...... interesting concept.....
On the 1 Jan 2000 I resigned from ASL and joined Veta at the bottom of the Seniority List; my expectations changed. Why should myself (or the AOA for that matter) have any obligations to protect people who haven't joined the company yet.....!!
Yes my idea's are strange, I completely fail to grasp that one. After the AOA allows RA 65 and another 4-5 years to command goes onto the 3-4 they already gave me I assume you would recommend my 'expectations' change again
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilalbatross
I can only deal with your posts as you write them.... I'm not a mind reader.
I don't expect the AOA to go into bat for someone on the separate ASL freighter fleet to take pax seniority away from me.
The AOA going into bat for ASL.... that will come as news to a lot of people... yet another strange idea or did you mean to write something else.
When the Integration occurred and you supposedly had pax seniority taken away from you, were you paying AOA fees? If not, what obligation has the AOA got to look after your interests?
You seem to be under the false view that the integration(s) were the result of some collusion between the AOA and ASL.... you are seriously deluded..
Equally, the AOA quote "allows RA65"... how do you propose the AOA stops it... what have you done to stop it?
I don't expect the AOA to go into bat for someone on the separate ASL freighter fleet to take pax seniority away from me.
The AOA going into bat for ASL.... that will come as news to a lot of people... yet another strange idea or did you mean to write something else.
When the Integration occurred and you supposedly had pax seniority taken away from you, were you paying AOA fees? If not, what obligation has the AOA got to look after your interests?
You seem to be under the false view that the integration(s) were the result of some collusion between the AOA and ASL.... you are seriously deluded..
Equally, the AOA quote "allows RA65"... how do you propose the AOA stops it... what have you done to stop it?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equally, the AOA quote "allows RA65"... how do you propose the AOA stops it... what have you done to stop it?
I fly with senior guys who can't actually grasp what losing 10 years of command pay in your career means in dollars and cents. No seriously. There is no way the junior AOA members are going to get their message about the potential for a huge loss in earnings across to the rest of the AOA if the GC themselves keep looking the other way.
I see a right and a need for plenty to go to 65 if they wish but it would be nice, don't you think, if the GC could say to it's members this is what the cost of RA65 to the more junior members will be.
Just a thought and thanks for the replies.
Deadbird,
I have to say I find your posts ignorant and condescending.
When did you sign a contract with years to command written into it (what makes you think you'll pass first-time or ever with your CRM)?
How do you expect to defy the law of the land as far as RA65 goes?
Your sums regarding delays to command by ASL integration defy belief, it will reduce your command time. Not like the 3 yrs the creation of it added to mine.
As someone who did 14 yrs to command in CX you obviously make inaccurate generalities (that won't help with your command either).
Now I'll go and sleep it off and hopefully forget this thread
I have to say I find your posts ignorant and condescending.
When did you sign a contract with years to command written into it (what makes you think you'll pass first-time or ever with your CRM)?
How do you expect to defy the law of the land as far as RA65 goes?
Your sums regarding delays to command by ASL integration defy belief, it will reduce your command time. Not like the 3 yrs the creation of it added to mine.
As someone who did 14 yrs to command in CX you obviously make inaccurate generalities (that won't help with your command either).
Now I'll go and sleep it off and hopefully forget this thread
Last edited by BusyB; 10th Apr 2008 at 01:31. Reason: 2 many beers
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the world
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Busy,
Sorry but I don't understand, how did the ASL integration add to your time to command? No I wasn't ASL I just don't see how if they are placed on the bottom of the seniority list how that effects you.
Sorry but I don't understand, how did the ASL integration add to your time to command? No I wasn't ASL I just don't see how if they are placed on the bottom of the seniority list how that effects you.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backspace,
before ASL was introduced all pax and freighters were flown by pilots on the CX seniority list. The introduction of ASL took the freighters away and CX took the opportunity to lower FO and CN (and FE for that matter) salaries for freighter flying. So not sure of the number but I suspect it was close to 100 commands that should have gone to CX employees that ended up going to ASL employees.
The re-integration of ASL in 1/1/00 has caused a huge blip or bubble of numbers coming up for command later this year. I hear people complaining about that - usually those that joined soon after 1/1/00. The real winners out of the reintegration are the CX employees who joined between 96 and 2000 as their ASL peers who are senior to them, in terms of years working for CX/ASL are now junior to them on the seniority list as their official start date is 1/1/00.
So its not a case of people joining after 1/1/00 being disadvantaged, but rather those that joined in 98 and 99 being advantaged since the ASL seniority of their more senior peers was not grandfathered into CX!
BusyB has alluded to the fact that reintegrating the second ONCE and ONCE only group of ASL pilots into CX will reduce time to command. This is not correct, IMO. What will reduce time to command is if all commands, pax and freighter, are done strictly in seniority order from the top of the FO list. At the moment anyone can apply for a freighter command...due to inferior pay and rostering conditions it often goes to quite junior FOs. Every command taken by a junior pilot extends time to command for all pilots senior to them. I see nothing has changed thus far, in terms of the pay and rostering of freighter pilots, so until those terms and conditions are improved, time to command will still be lengthened by early freighter commands!
Still albatross,
I have done a spreadsheet and I do know the expected delay to command and the expected loss of career earnings. Whilst the numbers are significant yours appear to be a little sensationalist and off the mark.
Simple numerical example. If CX is expanding such that it needs approx 100 CNs per year then RA65 would halve that requirement assuming 100% extend beyond 55. In ten years from now the 65year olds will have to retire and we go back to the situation we have now where half the commands are for retirees and the other half are for expansion.
If all pilots extend for 5 years, then time to command increases by approx 2.5 years. If they all extend for 10 years, then time to command extends approx 5 years.
If full bypass pay is received then loss of career earnings is equivalent to working for free for one year. That is, you will need to work at 56 just to get your career earnings to catch up to where they would have been at 55. If you don't get any bypass pay, which is what CX has been angling for with based guys, you need to work three more years to recover the lost career earnings.
clear as mud?
before ASL was introduced all pax and freighters were flown by pilots on the CX seniority list. The introduction of ASL took the freighters away and CX took the opportunity to lower FO and CN (and FE for that matter) salaries for freighter flying. So not sure of the number but I suspect it was close to 100 commands that should have gone to CX employees that ended up going to ASL employees.
The re-integration of ASL in 1/1/00 has caused a huge blip or bubble of numbers coming up for command later this year. I hear people complaining about that - usually those that joined soon after 1/1/00. The real winners out of the reintegration are the CX employees who joined between 96 and 2000 as their ASL peers who are senior to them, in terms of years working for CX/ASL are now junior to them on the seniority list as their official start date is 1/1/00.
So its not a case of people joining after 1/1/00 being disadvantaged, but rather those that joined in 98 and 99 being advantaged since the ASL seniority of their more senior peers was not grandfathered into CX!
BusyB has alluded to the fact that reintegrating the second ONCE and ONCE only group of ASL pilots into CX will reduce time to command. This is not correct, IMO. What will reduce time to command is if all commands, pax and freighter, are done strictly in seniority order from the top of the FO list. At the moment anyone can apply for a freighter command...due to inferior pay and rostering conditions it often goes to quite junior FOs. Every command taken by a junior pilot extends time to command for all pilots senior to them. I see nothing has changed thus far, in terms of the pay and rostering of freighter pilots, so until those terms and conditions are improved, time to command will still be lengthened by early freighter commands!
Still albatross,
I have done a spreadsheet and I do know the expected delay to command and the expected loss of career earnings. Whilst the numbers are significant yours appear to be a little sensationalist and off the mark.
Simple numerical example. If CX is expanding such that it needs approx 100 CNs per year then RA65 would halve that requirement assuming 100% extend beyond 55. In ten years from now the 65year olds will have to retire and we go back to the situation we have now where half the commands are for retirees and the other half are for expansion.
If all pilots extend for 5 years, then time to command increases by approx 2.5 years. If they all extend for 10 years, then time to command extends approx 5 years.
If full bypass pay is received then loss of career earnings is equivalent to working for free for one year. That is, you will need to work at 56 just to get your career earnings to catch up to where they would have been at 55. If you don't get any bypass pay, which is what CX has been angling for with based guys, you need to work three more years to recover the lost career earnings.
clear as mud?
NC,
You are right I was assuming all commands in strict seniority order.
As a matter of interest have you calculated how many extra years an A-Scaler has to work to make up for his '99 paycut?
You are right I was assuming all commands in strict seniority order.
As a matter of interest have you calculated how many extra years an A-Scaler has to work to make up for his '99 paycut?