AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal

[SFGDOG]

CJG

You conveniently omit to mention that RA65 will add years onto the time to command for all FO's and SO's. Never mind BPP, this alone is why not many, if any COS99 FO's or SO's will ever be keen on RA65 without appropriate compensation. End of story.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

SFGDOG
I have been going to great lengths to try and get it thru your heads to negotiate something with compensation for the inevitable increase in RA. If you wait too long fighting your own membership the company will outsmart you and you will end up with NO COMPENSATION. Have you got it yet? Re read and take it in.

[SFGDOG]

If its so inevitable, why spend money in court to make some lawyers even wealthier and why are we even writing about it? This idea of imposed RA65 contracts placed in our mailbox is just a pipe-dream in the current environment. There is just no reason for the company to do it and lots of reasons not to. A year ago it may have been a possibility. Forced leave without pay is a more likely event. How many extensions, even on the freighter are being offered at the moment?

[Dragon69]

Cyril,

Reading your posts makes feel really sorry for you! You are so vocal as if your life depends on RA65.

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

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

What pathetic, pathetic statements! You really think the majority of the pilot body want to sign away BPP in favor of RA65, or that everyone is going to sign a news CoS because it has been dropped in our mailboxes . We have been here long enough, hence the reason you will find majority will not sign new CoSs as we have in the past. You're trying to sell your argument by making fictitious statements on behalf of the majority.

[iceman50]

Kent

I am not trying to intimidate you, just stating that if you are all so against RA65 then you should be quite happy to sign it away now yourselves to ensure no gets it now. Can't have your cake and eat it.

[Loopdeloop]

Iceman
The information you seek is easy to come by, certainly with regards to Fleet/Base/Joining date of the company. If you can't access crewdirect, ask a pilot friend. As to AOA joining date, a fairly long time ago and at least he's put some work in on our behalf in the past as a GC member, so don't dismiss the proposal out of hand.

As for your other ideas re individuals giving up rights to employment beyond 55, engage brain first and think the idea through to its conclusion. Does it result in a fair solution for all? It's barely a step up from KJP's idea last year! Effectively, all captains would sign up for 65 and some F/O's would. The effect on those who didn't would be significant both in career earnings and time to command.

[iceman50]

Loop

I realise I could get that information that way but haven't, wanted to see if the man himself would reply.

As for engaging brain you should re-read the post. If all the naysayers want to deny some of us the right to work to 65, then those proposing it and advocating the contract says 55, should sign away their right to work past 55. You cannot shaft one section to only want it changed when YOU get towards 55. When perhaps your plans went out the window or heaven forbid you actually ENJOY the job!

[Loopdeloop]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point then. The way I see it, we're all playing on the same field at the moment in terms of retirement age and bypass pay - We being all those possibly affected by the appeal, and same playing field being same contractual rights. To do what you're suggesting would give one side the slope and a good following wind.
Even the fairest solution suggested by the AOA still gives the older side the slope. If we got RA 65 and BPP for extensions past 55 then all the F/Os & S/Os are still going to have their commands delayed significantly, with some (but not enough) compensation on the financial side. Their basing opportunity will also slide to the right by many years.

The "who deserves BPP" question is a red herring, we need to concentrate on finding a fairish solution, which your suggestion isn't.

[raven11]

Gentleman (and probably some Lady Ppruners),

Over the past day or so, I’ve been mulling over a thought that came to me (earth shattering, as that may seem). I’m thinking that when you read all the emotional, yet well argued, positions expressed on both sides of this issue, you get a sense of just how frustrated and fed up we all are for the thousand different cuts, twists, interpretations, changes, and now more court cases, involving our conditions of employment.

Does this thread read like the expressions of a happy, stable, and balanced workforce? Or, does it read like a workforce coming apart at the seams? I mean really! It’s now becoming obvious that frustrations have been simmering just below the boiling point. The expressions on this thread are a plea to the AOA and our managers to sort out this crazy mess?

Whichever side you're on, I think you feel under attack! I think we all just want to hold on to what we have. No more cuts, no more degradations, no more B, C, D, or O scales, no more direct entries or queue jumping on much reduced conditions, no more complicated basing schemes.... We all want a common set of conditions so that we all know where the goal posts are, and so that we all are all treated the same, valued the same, and rewarded the same, for our work.

I think the previous GMA was probably the only one who understood the twists and turns of the far too many contracts, conditions, and schemes. Perhaps he was in his position for too long, and things just slowly evolved this way over time. I don’t know. In any case, I really feel for the new GMA who now needs to sort this mess out, and “steady the ship”.

When I joined this airline, it was an incredible feeling! I was so proud and happy…I had made it! To tell someone you worked for Cathay was a fantastic feeling. People recognized, and yes envied, the fact that you belonged to a first class organization. I still feel that way, and most people still recognize Cathay as the best airline to fly on, an airline with a first class cockpit and cabin product, and a proud workforce.

Cathay remains the finest legacy airline on the planet. Bar none. I would not want to work for any other outfit. If you want to see what we do not want to become, take a look at the “low cost” other airline currently based in HKG. That’s what a fragmented, penny-wise but pound foolish, outfit looks like! How safe is that airline? In it’s current form, it’s an embarrassment to Hong Kong.

So my plea is to both the AOA and our management to recognize all of the above, and sort this mess out. We all need to mix a little water in our wine, and that includes Cathay. Give us a balanced, common, and fair set of working conditions. Something worthy of this organization. Let’s just get it done!

Here’s my suggestion. PW should ask NR to clear his appointment calendar for a day. Then the two of them, and only the two of them, can lock the door and hammer out a fair and balanced agreement! One that recognizes the requirements of both the employer and the workforce. The office door remains closed, except for the occasional serving of food and water, until they reach a fair understanding. We don’t want nor need a militant and poisoned relationship. Nor does the public or shareholder we serve. We’ve had that in the past, and it was the basis of where we are today!

I really do believe that the fix is that simple.

[Humber10]

Kent,

You hit the nail on the head... we all knew what we were getting into by signing the dotted line. It was pretty clear to me when I signed up, age 55, quickish time to command... etc. The contract states 55, so what's the arguement?? Im sure there are plenty of other jobs out there if you wish to continue to work, floats in the Maldives, or somewhere else tropical, isnt that more appealing?

Age 55 worked for all those before us, so why change a good thing and make it harder for those coming through and less attractive to those who were looking at joining.

And NO, I wont be asking for 65 later on, there's a lot more to life than sitting in a long haul tin can...

[VR-HFX]

Raven

As someone a wee bit older in years and years at CX...albeit not many (looking at your age), all I can say is that it is not easy to unscramble the egg.

Like you, I used to think that the mess we find ourself in could be easily resolved with a good dose of commonsense and leadership.

Sadly this is not the case. Not even Rod Eddington, who is no intellectual slouch, foresaw the mess he instigated, albeit at the behest of the owners.

My take after well more than 20 years is that more unites us than divides us but the company has become so big and unwieldy with no identifiable source of ultimate decision making that a solution will not be forthcoming UNLESS Sir Adrian himself can close the hangar door and sort it out. Putting NR and PW in the same room will achieve nothing.

Your right about CX being the best of the legacy carriers with a loyal clientele who will ensure its survival in the worst of economic circumstances. The rest is up to Sir Adrian IMHO.

Tin Can

Spot on.

[Liam Gallagher]

Raven

The point you make is valid and often discussed around the campfire. Word around said campfire is the new GMA agrees with the sentiments of your post.

However the problem he has can be illustrated by viewing the budget to pay the pilot body as a pie. That pie is not going to get bigger; in fact it is almost certainly about to get a bit smaller. You are proposing to cut this shrinking pie a different way to achieve what you call "a balanced, common, and fair set of working conditions".

I would wager you presently receive a slice of that pie bigger than most; are you prepared to accept a significantly smaller piece.... say... B scale lite?

[HaveQuick]

Cyril et al, you espouse egalitarianism yet as NC has already suggested money, as usual with Cathay Pacific, has become the problem. The difference in career earnings between the last A scaler and the first B scaler, including pay, PFund, 13th month, travel fund and bonuses is approximately £1,000,000 (+ or - £200,000), in my estimation (assuming 10yrs to command and 7 years as captain). This is not equality.
NC has also suggested that an F/O will have to work for nothing for 3 years, to even stand still. If a captain goes to 65 he will get 100% of the benefit, the F/O will only get 70%. It is even worse if the F/O retires at 60, he or she works for 5 years for 20% pay. This is not equality.
Your equality for all appears to be more “Animal Farm”; we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
However, we do need to hear from the Committee, and quickly, to see what their proposals are before deciding on the issue. As Loopdeloop suggests the CoS at RA55 is our last “level” playing field.

[Fac6]

It's been said many times, when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds. Some say there has been a shift in society where the norm and RA is now 65... what rubbish, there has been no shift. The only change is that most of those saying it are now 54

I know many wont agree with my post but thats life, if they wanted to retire at 65 they should have joined VS, BMI etc.

Not to mention how RA 65 will seriously screw basing opportunities for the junior guys.

[raven11]

Fac6

You're right, your post does annoy me. What part of "we need a balanced agreement that’s fair to everyone" don’t you understand?

There are over 230 posts on this thread. Have you read any? At least 115 of them address and answer the questions you raise.

When you say: "when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds..."

Then follow it up with: "Not to mention how RA 65 will seriously screw basing opportunities for the junior guys". It suggests you haven't read anything on this thread. It takes us all the way back to page one.

So please, read all the arguments, both for and against, then come back and contribute something more mature.

[yokebearer]

That pie is not going to get bigger; in fact it is almost certainly about to get a bit smaller. You are proposing to cut this shrinking pie a different way to achieve what you call "a balanced, common, and fair set of working conditions".

I would wager you presently receive a slice of that pie bigger than most; are you prepared to accept a significantly smaller piece.... say... B scale lite?

If the "Pie of pilot pay" is not going to get bigger - then we have to slice it a different way someone said. Excellent idea.

Here goes -

1.We accept RA65 without bypass pay BUT all extendees go on B scale and the money thus saved goes into a raise of the FO pay scale - which will compensate for lack of bypass. So extendees sacrifice a bit of cash and FO's sacrifice quick commands. Nobody wins but it seems fair. No cost solution to CX.
2. Inflationary adjustments on yearly basis gets written into contract.
3. Housing assistance for mortgages gets extended beyond 15 years to 25 like Dragon Air. It makes after all no difference to CX.

The only thing that costs CX here is inflationary adjustment - which any decent world class corporation seems to agree on is only fair.

Now someone go tell the DFO.

[christn]

I am A scale and would like the opportunity to continue beyond 55. However, my original contract expires at age 55 so I would not expect to do so on my current salary. I would be happy to continue on B-scale with the savings made by the company available to compensate those disadvantaged by my continuation.

I'm sure not many will agree with me but there has to be some compromise on both sides.

[Alpor]

A contract is a contract. The Cathay contract is to 55 even though the retirement age for pilots of large jets was until recently 60 and there was no outcry against that. Extending the COS to age RA65 for that particular contract would now disadvantage a lot of pilots within Cathay largely because there are now a range of different contracts. Most of this has been documented in this thread. But also, for example, this would disadvantage ex Dragonair pilots and any pilot who has joined under COS 08 because pilots ahead of them would not be leaving the company when they were expected to leave. So why can't those pilots that want to continue beyond 55 be employed in Hong Kong on the Freighter, initially, in the same way that ex Oasis pilots were, and at the bottom of the seniority list? Or is that not good enough?

[Liam Gallagher]

Christn and Yokebearer

Nice idea.... but you are infringing Charlie's new found human rights. You can't give someone a pay cut merely because he's 55. Equally, you can't argue that he signed a contract agreeing to all because he has human rights donchaknow. If you persist in this argument; the AOA will have to fund an appeal and Iceman will make a list of names.... get the picture....?

[jumpseat]

Pleeeeze!

Christn

I am completely at a loss as to why you would continue beyond 55 on reduced terms. Times change, civiised society moves on. Laws affecting contracts change.

"Well guv I signed up to go down chimneys and I'll bloody well keep doin' it despite those toffs makin' it illegal"

" Sir, I know that being female doesn't make me inferior, but I signed a contract that pays me less, so despite the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) I refuse to be paid the same as my male counterparts"

Come on people, lets get real. I am all for compromise but in today's society force me to retire at 55 or reduce my terms after 55, Shove it.
The European Convention on Human Rights will prevail. Should we be arguing about whether Cathay Pacific Airways should be taken to court by our Union for discriminating against employees because of their age when every other civilised employer on the planet has woken up to the modern world. its Cathay management that "SFO motion proposer" should be targeting.

I would bet my house, pension, future lottery win , that anyone of the peeps backing the anti RA65 lobby or refusing to back Charlies, case would not, repeat not, refuse a change to their contract including RA65 after all the the pre 1993 employees have departed. (Yes when we joined it wasn't called "A Scale, it was the going rate for the job)

Mr "SFO motion proposer". if your contract is changed after I am forced to retire at 55 I want half your earnings post 55.

Yeah..... I didn't think so.