AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal

[boxjockey]

Mephisto88,

That was by far the best thought out, and most eloquently written post on this thread. Thank you very much for your contribution. I think we all want an agreement, through negotiation, to resolve this issue. My fear, and maybe it is just that, is if this appeal is indeed won, then the company will simply unilaterally change the retirement age in ALL of our contracts. Now there is no compensation for the junior crew and a windfall for those of you who have been here for 12+ years. I think most are simply looking for a fair compromise that helps us all. I want to retire at 55, just show me how I can do it, regardless of seat held, with the same comfort I am planning with my current contract. If anyone can do that, then you will have my 100% support!!

box

[Apple Tree Yard]

..the simple truth of the matter is, whether it's next week, next year, or in 5years time, CX will be age 65, like nearly every other airline in the world. The hypocrisy in the positions taken here is dripping with self-interest. The reality is every FO/SO does not want 65....UNTIL they themselves are Captains...then it will be something they magically start supporting with all their might. In the end, CX will manouver and manipulate to ensure that 65 is established for ALL employees, BBP is a dead issue, and we all move onto other concerns and worries. Doubt this?...well, then you just haven't been here long enough....

[CYRILJGROOVE]

So finally, could I implore people on both sides to try hard and put themselves in the other persons shoes for a while, to see their viewpoint as clearly as possibly, and then having sat on their hands for a time consider the long reaching effects of your vote. Definitely not a time for a knee jerk vote, as this EGM really does not seem to have any good options, just a couple of bad ones which may see significant numbers of losers on one side and significant bad feeling on the other side.

Let the democratic process begin..........

I been saying the same thing for ages and totally agree now is not the time for a vote. However as far a democracy goes this vote would be a far from democracy as you could get. There are 938 Captains, 1218 FO's and 344 SO with only a minor percentage over 50+. The numbers are simply stacked against those approaching retirement. Elements of the membership has demonstrated its inability for a balanced viewpoint approach .

The current proposal is as disgraceful as a motion which would attempt get the Capts and FO ganging up against the SO's and taking away something from them and splitting it up between them. The motion is immoral and someone need to talk sense to the proposer and get him to withdraw it.

As an aside the copy of the COS I have states in para 10.4 that "An officer who has declined to undertake command training will not be eligible for command by pass pay" Granted it is dated July 1999 and may not be current, but it clearly demonstrated one thing, that is the COS is not set in stone and the companies interpretation on BPP does change. Don't plan your mortgage on it!

[Numero Crunchero]

Hi raven, continuing on with the pizza analogy, we have already had 6 pieces - that can't be taken away. Now we are asking to work longer for 2 more pieces to make up for the 8 pieces we expected, but didn't get thanks to ASL/paycuts etc. But getting those two pieces will cost half/quarter of a slice for our juniors, until they are 55. Yes they can stay longer and get more pizza too, but what if their plan was to leave at 55 - now they HAVE to stay longer to make up the half/quarter piece they lost! Them staying on longer will cause the following generation of CX pilots to earn less in a given time than their predeccesors - so the cycle will continue! So I don't like trying to argue the principle of RA65 from an 'earnings shortfall' point of view!

We already have de facto RA65 - we have extendees entrapped in C+Ting whether they want to be or not, others on the freighter and now a whole new group of CNs with less than 13months seniority who have RA65 enshrined in their contracts. Its ironic that we will have ex BA DECs working here long after those of us on RA55 are forced to leave, or suffer the indignity of annual company renewable contracts! Concurrently we have many people receiving BPP that many feel are undeserving of it, but which is not really relevant to the issue. If we had RA65 and full BPP there could be 100s of FOs on BPP in a few years so the few considered 'undeserving' of BPP will be in a minority.

I suspect the appeal will go ahead, AOA funded or not, so the issue is really should the AOA be funding it. If we read too much into the issue and make it an 'us or them' issue then yes it will be divisive...but only because we choose it to be divisive. I have spoken to people for and against the funding - they all have good grounds and arguments for their views, and none of them are acting in a purely selfish manner. I just hope that if it comes to a general vote that regardless of the outcome, we realise we are all on the same team, even if we don't always want to eat the same pizza;-)

[SFGDOG]

One could say "it looks like it's on for young and old."

[quadspeed]

Look, we all signed a legally binding contract stating that we'd work until 55. We (the AOA) are doing our damnest to keep the company in line, but this circus is making a mockery of it.

To those of you who want to work past 55, quit the AOA and renegotiate your own contract with the company. There are so many variants out there already, it can't make much difference to CX.

The only way forward from this point is for the AOA to make a hard stance against any extensions at all. With no extensions offered, this court case wouldn't even exist. It would allow younger guys to move into check and training, and the seniority list would get moving again.

Then....if the company wants to negotiate on RA65, then welcome to the table. .... for collective bargaining for all CoS-99s. One of the goals of any such agreement should be the retention of current payscale from 55 to 65; precisely what the AOA is backing in this particular case.

The company is conducting another great goat-fu(k, and we're busy digging our own graves.

[Fly747]

Contracts

Sorry quad, we didn't all sign to 55, KA and Oasis DECs have got a contract to 65.
The appeal is actually about the jurisdiction of a UK industrial tribunal, not the RA itself, once it is established that the UK courts can rule on CXUK pilots' retirement age then there can only be one outcome. It doesn't matter what the contract says it cannot enforce something that is illegal, i.e. age discrimination.
It also doesn't matter who votes on what AoA wise as I expect that the case will still be heard.

[Loopdeloop]

ATY - I heard that said over 5 years ago and the timeline has now expired. I don't doubt that it will come eventually but it's a brave man that puts a definitive timeline on this so confidently.

Cyril - I can't be made to sign a waiver. My legally binding contract says NRA 55 and BPP iaw the terms in the CoS. Unfortunately the only answer to this will probably only be found in a court, with the main question for us being "who funds it?"
Also, the term "complete selfish morons" adds nothing to a civilized debate!

[quadspeed]

Sorry quad, we didn't all sign to 55, KA and Oasis DECs have got a contract to 65.

Fly747

Precisely. Which is why I stated that the collective bargaining on this issue applies to the CoS-99 contracts. A

Anyone hired after 31.12.07 is on RA65 already; no need for further negotiations there. They've already made their deal.

But we haven't.

[Harbour Dweller]

CYRILJGROOVE,

Firstly, I have read all of your posts & have kept an open mind on your side of the discussion until now.

RA65 for all that want it , suits all Captains. FO's Choice 1 RA65 no BPP Choice 2 55 and BPP with slightly changed eligibility.

I thought you were preaching you wanted a fair deal for all. Your suggestion above doesn't seem to indicate this.

What you suggest is that you should have the opportunity of working to age 65 on full A scale whilst if junior crew wish to do so there should be no compensation for a delayed career & loss of earnings.

It is clear that Captains, like yourself, stand to gain the most whilst FO's & SO's will stand to lose the most.

I for one will offer Charlie financial assistance should the funding be pulled.

Of course you will but why?

As you question the morality of younger crew & their thoughts I ask you, is your support of this appeal out of self interest or for the good of ALL CX pilots?



quadspeed,

The only way forward from this point is for the AOA to make a hard stance against any extensions at all. With no extensions offered, this court case wouldn't even exist. It would allow younger guys to move into check and training, and the seniority list would get moving again.

Then....if the company wants to negotiate on RA65, then welcome to the table. .... for collective bargaining for all CoS-99s. One of the goals of any such agreement should be the retention of current payscale from 55 to 65; precisely what the AOA is backing in this particular case.

Great to see some fresh input into the discussion.

Your ideas certainly have merit. I hope this is a path the AOA considers as it holds benefits for both sides.

[Kitsune]

The HKAOA that bottled it when 49 (51) of it's members were sacked out of hand is going to take a 'hard stance' on extensions....... yeah, right!!

[CYRILJGROOVE]

I have been preaching a fair deal for all what I was saying is the company have been asking some very probing questions in fleet forums etc and have asked a fair few crew what they would do in certain scenarios. The options suggested by CX was
1 present deal age 55 and BPP or
2 RA65 and no BPP All have answered 2.
My point is let the AOA negotiate for you but every day we delay the imposition of the option of a choice having to be made is increasing.

For those of us who have been around a while a very familiar feeling is in the air. Have you heard of COSAP 94, COS99 Sign or be fired, 49's, RP 01 RP04 RP07 shortly RP09.

When CX probes about BPP and quote numbers of crew unsuitable for command receiving BPP and people freely tell them they would take 65 and waive BPP you can be sure of some thing is in the pipeline and a surprise in your mailbox.

This motion, as distinct from the case, is actually of little relevance inso far of the end game however it is causing a major distraction for the GC to get moving along with their proposal. The fact that BPP is in the COS is a barganing chip but it is of little value if members tell CX they would waive it for RA65. Negotiate something before it is not worth anything, withdraw the motion and get on with it!. It may evolve that the case may not need to proceed at all if a fair agreement was reached.

Inso far as the moron statements, point taken and I have edited them and a few others I said whilst particularly frustrated, they are result of a feeling of betrayel by the proposers of the motion that they feel that one section of the membership is not worthy of being afforded the basic principal of equal opportunity. I like Raven feel I have been stabbed in the Back and continually hearing "you signed a contract to 55" despite all of the considered responses and explanations is falling on deaf ears. I accept the criticism on that point and it probably did detract from the points I was making.

Of course you will but why?

Charlie and everyone on RA55 are being age discriminated against, they have to stop working at 55 yet many other pilots in the same company can go to 65, it goes far deeper than simply the contract you signed. (sign or be fired I might add).

[SFGDOG]

Does anybody really think in the current downturn that CX has any plans to impose RA65? For them, the best plan is to see off all the extendee's and as many retiree's as possible, especially as they are typically the most expensive crew resources in the company, in order to reduce crew numbers. This also solves the BPP issue for CX as well. Any thoughts otherwise is wishfill thinking. The place is ruled by the bean counters. We are more likely to see the reintroduction of VSS than RA65.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Don't recall seeing any allowance for downturns in age discrimination legislation. Would it not make sense to keep all court cases going to apply pressure from both ends of the workforce to force to CX to the table to sort out the mess once and for all. If there is going to be BPP, should it go to those being by passed or are you happy for it to continue to go to those on a base or those that have not passed the course. Do you want to continue to have DEC on the freighter, they are taking away a significant amount of commands that should be going to the Fo's who have waited their turn. Who is going to be let go if the downturn continues? , the 2 month DEC Capt or the 6 month SO or the 3 month DEFO, The most senior extendee, the most junior extendee. Gentlemen your contract is a mess, let your reps fix it for all

Do you want your union hijacked by an angry mob that suffer from tunnel vision, consider only their viewpoint, and prey on the vulnerable, those in the numeric minority. Who is their next target going to be?

[Liam Gallagher]

Cyril

To keep it simple... The legal action in essence promotes RA65 with no BPP.. in essence the AOA GC turned this down in the Aug/Sep 2007 .

If you believe the pilot body really wants RA65 no BPP; encourage the vote or better still bring your own vote forward on the issue. Then with a successful vote, send Paul W upstairs with a pen and sign a deal... save yourself a lot of grief and cash.....

[Jack57]

So with all due respect

Can someone tell me where the GC were when the Oasis and KA DEC's were offered Age 65?

IS there not something very wrong with that alone?

[iceman50]

Firstly a couple of questions for the SFO putting forward the motion.

1. Date of joining CX, fleet and base.
2. Date of joining the HKAOA.

Secondly for all the supporters of the motion and for those that vote for it.

1. We will ask the HKAOA to supply your names to the company with the express instruction that you wish to retire at 55, do not want to be offered an extension and do not want a retirement age of 65.
2. In doing so you are waiving all your legal rights that you may have had to work at CX past 55.

Thirdly for all the recent joiners of the HKAOA under the "special deal" (read cheap) are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and pay up to 5% of your salary to

1. Fight the company for your contract.
2. Support some of your colleagues who may fall foul of any action that might be taken by the company.

[Liam Gallagher]

Jack57

It's called COS08.......

The GC turned down a deal in Aug/Sep 07. Two of the unacceptable points the CC vocalized at the time were "RA65 with no BPP" and that new joiners would be on a different contract. Now we have the GC eager to fund a litigation, that if successful, will achieve "RA65 with no BPP". The company unilaterally imposed COS08 on new joiners without so much as a whimper from the membership.

[Voiceofreason]

Collective Bargaining

Then....if the company wants to negotiate on RA65, then welcome to the table. .... for collective bargaining for all CoS-99s.

The only slight problem with this noble plan, quadspeed, is that there is no such thing as collective bargaining in Hong Kong. Even if a deal is eventually reached, and the AoA vote 99% in favour, that remaining 1% is not obliged to accept the deal, or, for that matter, any non-AoA member.

So, we're left with the same problem, of some people happy to accept, whilst others not - fair deal for all? More variants of CoS?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

J

to keep it simple... The legal action in essence promotes RA65 with no BPP

. No the legal case deals with jurisdiction and then age discrimination. Your COS will still have BPP provisions in it. The GC have said they want to look after the entire membership and approach the company with a proposal. Having court action from both ends of the membership adds pressure for a settlement. The proposal by Mr Thyrd cuts one chunk of membership adrift for the sole benefit of another intrest group.

The GC turned down a deal in Aug/Sep 07. Two of the unacceptable points the CC vocalized at the time were "RA65 with no BPP" and that new joiners would be on a different contract.

Well the new joiners are on RA65 COS and in Sept 07 I am pretty sure the BPP was not going to those on a base without the seniority to hold that base as a Captain. Support for those choosing to sit on a cosy base and pick up a Captains paycheck is lukewarm at best

If you believe the pilot body really wants RA65 no BPP; encourage the vote or better still bring your own vote forward on the issue.

I will not need to bring on a vote, the company are getting the answers from the crew directly. They know when it comes to the crunch all Capt's would probably sign RA65 as BPP does not effect them (in particular those Capts about to be abandoned), The FO's who are actually being bypassed are missing out on the BPP because it goes to those not willing to come to HKG to get their command, or those that have failed awaiting another command course. Common sense would dictate take the option of RA65 because if you rip out all the emotion about BPP is of little value to them.

Cathay are aware that world wide legislation is slowiy closing in on them, with the cunudrum of On Shoring it is inevitable that RA65 will happen sooner or later. The sooner that dawns on the pilot community and the AOA can move foward the better.

The fix from the companies angle is actually very simple, Drop a new COS in your box, strike out all references to RA55, substitute it with RA 65. They know the numbers hanging out for BPP and RA55 is very low, the lack of BPP will mean a very low cost option for the company. A quick little letter to those on a base offering them a command in HKG is all that is need to according to 10.4 in the 1999 BPP COS provisions to take BPP from them. Those in HKG will have signed RA65 and BINGO, we have been outfoxed again and come up with zip for something that some think is the Holy Grail. (BPP). Withdraw the motion and concentrate your efforts on achieving a deal with appropriate compensation , not ripping the AOA to bits

If you do not believe that contracts could end up in your box, As some one else said, "you just have not been here long enough"