AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam,
Spot on. To the other poster: Why should the junior crew NEED TO GIVE UP ANYTHING?! All we are asking is that the contract we all signed be followed. What you are asking for is another 10 years of the gravy train. We gain NOTHING by adopting age 65. The end. Follow the contract.
box
Spot on. To the other poster: Why should the junior crew NEED TO GIVE UP ANYTHING?! All we are asking is that the contract we all signed be followed. What you are asking for is another 10 years of the gravy train. We gain NOTHING by adopting age 65. The end. Follow the contract.
box
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOX
I'm sure Liam is NOT junior crew!
When you joined did you not do any research on Cathay! All of us have been wanting our contract to have been followed but it has not happened. Now everyone must give up on trying to regain anything they have lost, because Junior crew like you might suffer and that is not fair. Poor diddums.
How much have all of you "Paid" into the AOA and for how long?
I'm sure Liam is NOT junior crew!
When you joined did you not do any research on Cathay! All of us have been wanting our contract to have been followed but it has not happened. Now everyone must give up on trying to regain anything they have lost, because Junior crew like you might suffer and that is not fair. Poor diddums.
How much have all of you "Paid" into the AOA and for how long?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman
"Lots of fine words Liam, what exactly are YOU prepared to give up"
I am not the one proposing a "commonsense compromise".... my understanding of compromise is that both parties concede smaller items for a greater good... I am struggling to see what Cyril is giving up in his proposed compromise.
In all seriousness: Raven, and to a lesser extent, Cyril, are being unduly negative. Surely apathy will rule the day and even if the 10% of membership ask for a vote (which is far from certain); a smart GC will require 2/3's of the membership to vote for the motion to stop the funding... what chance on even getting 2/3's to vote... let alone vote to stop the funding.
I also take this opportunity to restate; Charlie's case has real merit and there are many arguments to fund it. I have posted 2 areas of concern that members seem to have; there are counter-arguments... let's hear them....
I am not the one proposing a "commonsense compromise".... my understanding of compromise is that both parties concede smaller items for a greater good... I am struggling to see what Cyril is giving up in his proposed compromise.
In all seriousness: Raven, and to a lesser extent, Cyril, are being unduly negative. Surely apathy will rule the day and even if the 10% of membership ask for a vote (which is far from certain); a smart GC will require 2/3's of the membership to vote for the motion to stop the funding... what chance on even getting 2/3's to vote... let alone vote to stop the funding.
I also take this opportunity to restate; Charlie's case has real merit and there are many arguments to fund it. I have posted 2 areas of concern that members seem to have; there are counter-arguments... let's hear them....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seems to be a good point Liam.
With age 65 imposed with no bypass pay, Cyril et al gain the ability to work to 65 on the same pay, retaining a base as a Captain if they're on one, and give up nothing.
Anyone below the rank of Captain gains the ability to work for 65 but give up several years to command and many basing opportunities. They have to work an extra 2-3 years just to retire with the same pot of money. To put it another way, if they were planning on retiring at 55, they now have to work an extra 2-3 years for nothing. Is this a common sense compromise?
I'm nearly swayed by iceman's question about money paid into the AOA - I'm sure CM has paid more in over the years than this case will cost, but is this relevant?
I won't vote for the proposal to withdraw funding but once it's over we need a clear policy on the issue to be voted on by all the members. The GC currently think that the majority would support RA65 but they cannot know without a straightforward vote:
Do we want
a. RA65 with no bypass
b. RA55, adhere to the contract or
c. A negotiated compromise.
With age 65 imposed with no bypass pay, Cyril et al gain the ability to work to 65 on the same pay, retaining a base as a Captain if they're on one, and give up nothing.
Anyone below the rank of Captain gains the ability to work for 65 but give up several years to command and many basing opportunities. They have to work an extra 2-3 years just to retire with the same pot of money. To put it another way, if they were planning on retiring at 55, they now have to work an extra 2-3 years for nothing. Is this a common sense compromise?
I'm nearly swayed by iceman's question about money paid into the AOA - I'm sure CM has paid more in over the years than this case will cost, but is this relevant?
I won't vote for the proposal to withdraw funding but once it's over we need a clear policy on the issue to be voted on by all the members. The GC currently think that the majority would support RA65 but they cannot know without a straightforward vote:
Do we want
a. RA65 with no bypass
b. RA55, adhere to the contract or
c. A negotiated compromise.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently BPP benefits only a minority of pilots in CX and it only has a limited time frame whilst being bypassed. Regrettably (for genuine by passed pilots) the company has chosen to implement BPP differently to the way it has done things in the past and they are paying BPP to many crew who have no intention of doing a command and want to enjoy the benefits of a base and command pay, now if you want to talk about gravy trains that is a gravy train that many want to keep on the rails.
RA 65 is going to happen at some stage in the near or medium future as there is to much social and litigation pressure to keep the discriminatory policies of CX continuing forever.
BPP is in the COS at present and it has value to certain individuals but not others and arguably it being paid to the wrong individuals. When I talk of compensation or compromise what is meant is that the compensation should be negotiated by your reps and many possibilities are out there. However it seems to not be considered that the opportunity for everyone to work to 65 is also a benefit that may be realized later on in life by the current younger members. No doubt short term impacts on promotion will occur but that is inevitable whenever RA65 is introduced. What is needed is a mechanism to compensate those effected, that is the difficult bit.
One thing you need to get your heads around is that it will not be in the current form of BPP if everyone goes to 65, it will mirror COS 08 i.e RA65 No BPP until extensions over 65!!.
Tell me Liam and friends, for example....You have a 35 year old B scale Capt (who is also being age discriminated at present, it just does not effect him yet) and he is offered to go to age 65 just like every other crew member may get offered to go to 65.........what is it exactly you want him to give up on or compromise on to go to 65, what is it you want him to give to the crew members junior to him, do you want to take salary from him, what is it exactly?
RA 65 is going to happen at some stage in the near or medium future as there is to much social and litigation pressure to keep the discriminatory policies of CX continuing forever.
BPP is in the COS at present and it has value to certain individuals but not others and arguably it being paid to the wrong individuals. When I talk of compensation or compromise what is meant is that the compensation should be negotiated by your reps and many possibilities are out there. However it seems to not be considered that the opportunity for everyone to work to 65 is also a benefit that may be realized later on in life by the current younger members. No doubt short term impacts on promotion will occur but that is inevitable whenever RA65 is introduced. What is needed is a mechanism to compensate those effected, that is the difficult bit.
One thing you need to get your heads around is that it will not be in the current form of BPP if everyone goes to 65, it will mirror COS 08 i.e RA65 No BPP until extensions over 65!!.
Tell me Liam and friends, for example....You have a 35 year old B scale Capt (who is also being age discriminated at present, it just does not effect him yet) and he is offered to go to age 65 just like every other crew member may get offered to go to 65.........what is it exactly you want him to give up on or compromise on to go to 65, what is it you want him to give to the crew members junior to him, do you want to take salary from him, what is it exactly?
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 5th Feb 2009 at 23:00.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Jet
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril et al.
BPP is not the issue. It is a red herring. The issue is simple. A change to RA 65 will increase the time to command for any current FO or SO by 5 to 10 years. Add this to the already gloomy forecasts for time to command and we are looking at a blowout of many years. I suspect if it was mooted when you or anybody else was still wearing one of those ranks, you might well have a different attitude to how attractive RA65 is.
You will never convince many, if any, FO's or SO's to voluntarily vote away that many years to command unless they are compensated for the loss of income due to that delay. Call it self interest if you like, but lets be honest, that's human nature and I suspect everyone primarily operates from that perspective. The company will not offer that compensation, especially in the current environment, so any compromise is unlikely. The chances of two thirds of the current AOA membership voting the way you would like is just not going to happen. Most would rather take there chances that any legislation in Hong Kong is some way off.
Currently, it is financially very hard to make ends meet if you are a junior officer with a family in Hong Kong or even on a base. For most, the only opportunity to save will come with promotion to Captain. Whilst there is some sympathy for guys who are approaching 55 now, there is simply no way a junior officer could voluntarily except RA65 because the cost to that Officer and his family is considerable. As it has been explained on this forum, it would amount to working for several years for free. At the moment the company is getting smaller, therefore, natural attrition is the only hope a junior officer has of being promoted any time in the foreseable future.
As an aside, BPP will vanish over the next few years as those on extensions have there contracts expire and not renewed. There are no new extensions at the moment, and there is little chance of any in the future, except on the 400, but that is only a short term requirement from the company. CX has little or no need to extend anyone at the moment, and good commercial reasons not to. Even without BPP, it is cheaper to employ a B scale Capt 1 then a B scale 17.
So by all means, fire away on this forum, but you are wasting your time if you are trying to convince any junior officer that RA 65 will be good for them.
BPP is not the issue. It is a red herring. The issue is simple. A change to RA 65 will increase the time to command for any current FO or SO by 5 to 10 years. Add this to the already gloomy forecasts for time to command and we are looking at a blowout of many years. I suspect if it was mooted when you or anybody else was still wearing one of those ranks, you might well have a different attitude to how attractive RA65 is.
You will never convince many, if any, FO's or SO's to voluntarily vote away that many years to command unless they are compensated for the loss of income due to that delay. Call it self interest if you like, but lets be honest, that's human nature and I suspect everyone primarily operates from that perspective. The company will not offer that compensation, especially in the current environment, so any compromise is unlikely. The chances of two thirds of the current AOA membership voting the way you would like is just not going to happen. Most would rather take there chances that any legislation in Hong Kong is some way off.
Currently, it is financially very hard to make ends meet if you are a junior officer with a family in Hong Kong or even on a base. For most, the only opportunity to save will come with promotion to Captain. Whilst there is some sympathy for guys who are approaching 55 now, there is simply no way a junior officer could voluntarily except RA65 because the cost to that Officer and his family is considerable. As it has been explained on this forum, it would amount to working for several years for free. At the moment the company is getting smaller, therefore, natural attrition is the only hope a junior officer has of being promoted any time in the foreseable future.
As an aside, BPP will vanish over the next few years as those on extensions have there contracts expire and not renewed. There are no new extensions at the moment, and there is little chance of any in the future, except on the 400, but that is only a short term requirement from the company. CX has little or no need to extend anyone at the moment, and good commercial reasons not to. Even without BPP, it is cheaper to employ a B scale Capt 1 then a B scale 17.
So by all means, fire away on this forum, but you are wasting your time if you are trying to convince any junior officer that RA 65 will be good for them.
Last edited by SFGDOG; 5th Feb 2009 at 01:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My preference would be answer C.
I believe that a negotiated compromise where the benefits and the disadvantages are more evenly distributed amongst the different crew categories would be the fairest solution.
It is somewhat idealistic to expect all sides of the aircrew complement to gain an advantage when negotiating with the Company. They too will want their pound of flesh, so a compromise to some extent will no doubt be inevitable.
The Company too will realise that the current financial dramas will not last, then it will be expansion, max training and full speed ahead. This will only occur if they are able to put enough bums on cockpit seats. If they are able to retain more trainers after age 55, the previously experienced limitations on the capacity of the training machine can be alleviated to some degree, . Demographically it is obvious, many of the CT are somewhat ancient, IIRC from a recent AOA email, some 40% of the C&Ters are on extension, ergo before the upturn occurs, the Company will also want to sort this aspect of retention beyond 55 for all crew, in order to prevent what they see as expensive liabilities, but what we know as valuable resources, from taking up golf too early.
However, we may need to consider that if the Company perceive that we need it more than they do, then our benefit may not be as great as if the AOA were negotiating perhaps later, when the boot returns to our foot, such that the negotiations may be more on the AOA's terms.
So it brings us back to the question of - is it correct to pursue the appeal with AOA funds in the current industrial and financial climate? I guess we will all find out on or after Feb 10th whether the EGM motion has obtained the 10% support required to push the matter to a vote.
Incidentally, a previous poster queried whether the companies costs would also have to paid - I hear 3rd hand that as CX is not actually a plaintiff, merely an interested party, that paying any of their costs is unlikely. The AOA may perhaps be able to give people more accurate info on this aspect if they are contacted.
Either way, a unified AOA is going to have more sway than a fractured one, so again I would urge members that if it does come to a vote, to try and view the problem from the other persons shoes as well, then let the reasoned mature and logical head make the vote, rather than the emotional knee jerk response that some of our posters appear to be likely to make.
Clearly if the motion does not get the 10% support, then the system will also have worked as intended, and the GC and membership can move on to the next battle.
I believe that a negotiated compromise where the benefits and the disadvantages are more evenly distributed amongst the different crew categories would be the fairest solution.
It is somewhat idealistic to expect all sides of the aircrew complement to gain an advantage when negotiating with the Company. They too will want their pound of flesh, so a compromise to some extent will no doubt be inevitable.
The Company too will realise that the current financial dramas will not last, then it will be expansion, max training and full speed ahead. This will only occur if they are able to put enough bums on cockpit seats. If they are able to retain more trainers after age 55, the previously experienced limitations on the capacity of the training machine can be alleviated to some degree, . Demographically it is obvious, many of the CT are somewhat ancient, IIRC from a recent AOA email, some 40% of the C&Ters are on extension, ergo before the upturn occurs, the Company will also want to sort this aspect of retention beyond 55 for all crew, in order to prevent what they see as expensive liabilities, but what we know as valuable resources, from taking up golf too early.
However, we may need to consider that if the Company perceive that we need it more than they do, then our benefit may not be as great as if the AOA were negotiating perhaps later, when the boot returns to our foot, such that the negotiations may be more on the AOA's terms.
So it brings us back to the question of - is it correct to pursue the appeal with AOA funds in the current industrial and financial climate? I guess we will all find out on or after Feb 10th whether the EGM motion has obtained the 10% support required to push the matter to a vote.
Incidentally, a previous poster queried whether the companies costs would also have to paid - I hear 3rd hand that as CX is not actually a plaintiff, merely an interested party, that paying any of their costs is unlikely. The AOA may perhaps be able to give people more accurate info on this aspect if they are contacted.
Either way, a unified AOA is going to have more sway than a fractured one, so again I would urge members that if it does come to a vote, to try and view the problem from the other persons shoes as well, then let the reasoned mature and logical head make the vote, rather than the emotional knee jerk response that some of our posters appear to be likely to make.
Clearly if the motion does not get the 10% support, then the system will also have worked as intended, and the GC and membership can move on to the next battle.
Last edited by mephisto88; 4th Feb 2009 at 23:32.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mephisto
"Incidentally, a previous poster queried whether the companies costs would also have to paid - I hear 3rd hand that as CX is not actually a plaintiff, merely an interested party, that paying any of their costs is unlikely".
First hand information is dangerous enough; 3rd hand is Taliban stuff. The AOA will be bankrolling the person trying to Appeal the original decision, presumably Charlie. If it is to be heard in the Court of Appeal, the person moving the case is the Applicant. On the otherside, there will be someone else who will be defending the Application; the Respondent. It is hard to see anyone fulfilling the role of Respondent other than Charlie's employers. How else can he get an enforcable Order from the Court to make CX continue to employ him? As with all Courts; should you lose you can expect a Cost Order to follow payable to somebody...
You speak of a "negotiated compromise"... I assume you mean a compromise between the Pilots and the Company. Everyone wants to see that; the devil's in the detail.. Consider this, should any deal involve Charlie not remaining on his current Salary and Pension (A-scale); then surely that is ageism and the Litigation will continue... why would the company cut a deal on that basis?
Cyril: There are 2 compromises here, you are blurring them. You are proposing a commonsense compromise between the members to see Charlie's Appeal funded. The example of the 35 yr B-scale Capt is the resolution of the whole RA question. That will be a compromise between the Company and the pilot body as a whole. In the compromise you propose; those who oppose funding should bend over and in return you will support them in a push for A-scales, A scale provident fund and 47 virgins... sounds to me like work hard for your masters on earth and you will get your rewards in heaven...
Loopdeloop; the argument about Charlie paying his fees is persuasive. However, should it apply if what he is trying to achieve will result in something not in line with AOA policy ie. RA 65 no BPP.
SFGDOG... what you say makes sense to me; However, what if a UK Court does rule RA55 is Age Discrimination. Are you going to go public and say; I am only against Discrimination as long as it doesn't cost me anything? Don't seem to remember that bit in Dr King's speech.
and if you've bothered enough to read this far... Apathy will prevail.... Funding will go ahead...
First hand information is dangerous enough; 3rd hand is Taliban stuff. The AOA will be bankrolling the person trying to Appeal the original decision, presumably Charlie. If it is to be heard in the Court of Appeal, the person moving the case is the Applicant. On the otherside, there will be someone else who will be defending the Application; the Respondent. It is hard to see anyone fulfilling the role of Respondent other than Charlie's employers. How else can he get an enforcable Order from the Court to make CX continue to employ him? As with all Courts; should you lose you can expect a Cost Order to follow payable to somebody...
You speak of a "negotiated compromise"... I assume you mean a compromise between the Pilots and the Company. Everyone wants to see that; the devil's in the detail.. Consider this, should any deal involve Charlie not remaining on his current Salary and Pension (A-scale); then surely that is ageism and the Litigation will continue... why would the company cut a deal on that basis?
Cyril: There are 2 compromises here, you are blurring them. You are proposing a commonsense compromise between the members to see Charlie's Appeal funded. The example of the 35 yr B-scale Capt is the resolution of the whole RA question. That will be a compromise between the Company and the pilot body as a whole. In the compromise you propose; those who oppose funding should bend over and in return you will support them in a push for A-scales, A scale provident fund and 47 virgins... sounds to me like work hard for your masters on earth and you will get your rewards in heaven...
Loopdeloop; the argument about Charlie paying his fees is persuasive. However, should it apply if what he is trying to achieve will result in something not in line with AOA policy ie. RA 65 no BPP.
SFGDOG... what you say makes sense to me; However, what if a UK Court does rule RA55 is Age Discrimination. Are you going to go public and say; I am only against Discrimination as long as it doesn't cost me anything? Don't seem to remember that bit in Dr King's speech.
and if you've bothered enough to read this far... Apathy will prevail.... Funding will go ahead...
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 5th Feb 2009 at 01:00.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril, this is not just a Capt vs F/O scenario and you might be surprised to find that many 35 yr old B scale Capts would vote for RA55! With RA 55 and no extensions, our newest captain would be on his chosen base in minutes, particularly if it's a European base he's after. With RA 65, it'll take an extra 10-15 years. Unlike the time to command, which would be less than 10, if the company were forced to increase RA to 65 on bases but left Hkg as it is, basings would become very scarce indeed.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Jet
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam,
I have heard this discrimination argument used but I am wondering if it is just a convenient excuse. Lets not confuse this with other matters such as racism and the like. Lets face it, many other employees in different occupations around the world, including pilots work fixed term contracts. Ours just happens to end at 55. Is it discrimination when their contract expires as well? Does a expat lawyer/engineer/accountant in Hong Kong who has a contract not renewed at the moment whilst, more junior/cheaper employees are retained have legal recourse for discrimination? Unlikely. It's just business.
I am afraid the only guys I have any real sympathy for are the first B scalers coming up to 55 and the poor SO/FO with a family who can't pay his bills. They have had marginal renumeration from the commencement of their CX employment. If an A scaler has squandered his/her money through poor life choices or doesn't want to stop being called Captain than that is just hard luck in my humble opinion because their seniority doesn't give them the right to, in effect, cause such a detrimental impact on their junior colleagues.
We have a contract, lets stick with it until we have no alternative. We have no bargaining power with the company, so lets not delude ourselves that we can negotiate any worthwhile compromise. They are solving the BPP issue themselves by not extending anymore pilots.
I have heard this discrimination argument used but I am wondering if it is just a convenient excuse. Lets not confuse this with other matters such as racism and the like. Lets face it, many other employees in different occupations around the world, including pilots work fixed term contracts. Ours just happens to end at 55. Is it discrimination when their contract expires as well? Does a expat lawyer/engineer/accountant in Hong Kong who has a contract not renewed at the moment whilst, more junior/cheaper employees are retained have legal recourse for discrimination? Unlikely. It's just business.
I am afraid the only guys I have any real sympathy for are the first B scalers coming up to 55 and the poor SO/FO with a family who can't pay his bills. They have had marginal renumeration from the commencement of their CX employment. If an A scaler has squandered his/her money through poor life choices or doesn't want to stop being called Captain than that is just hard luck in my humble opinion because their seniority doesn't give them the right to, in effect, cause such a detrimental impact on their junior colleagues.
We have a contract, lets stick with it until we have no alternative. We have no bargaining power with the company, so lets not delude ourselves that we can negotiate any worthwhile compromise. They are solving the BPP issue themselves by not extending anymore pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm, 'we have a contract, lets' stick to it'...?? err, what part of the contract do you want to stick to..? the bit about age 55? of course, because THAT's the bit that causes you a bit of a problem. Tell you what, when CX decided to break my contract in ohhh, just about every other area, the 55 bit really didn't matter all that much either at that point. On top of that, the old 'discrimination' thing is becoming a bit of an issue now...so, basically, tough luck. Age 65 is inevitable, so get over it. In case you haven't noticed...there are a WHOLE bunch of Captains in the company well over that age already. The issue has been settled...you just don't want to realise it. 
ps. why would CX get rid of all it's experience...just for other companies to benefit from it? you guys are going to bludgeon yourselves out of any negotiated settlement on this issue...and lose the whole lot. brilliant.
ps. why would CX get rid of all it's experience...just for other companies to benefit from it? you guys are going to bludgeon yourselves out of any negotiated settlement on this issue...and lose the whole lot. brilliant.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sfgdog
"I have heard this discrimination argument used but I am wondering if it is just a convenient excuse.."
As far as the Funding goes "convenient excuse" or not discrimination is what this is soley about. If Charlie wins; the company will not be able to force a UK based pilot to retire, or take a pay cut due to age, or use the 3 month clause to impose a new contract because he is of a certain age. As night follows day, this ruling will be used on the European bases and could possibly extend through to OZ and NZ given they have historically linked legal systems. HK could get very interesting on the Corporate Governance front. Basically, the Genie is out of the bottle and there will be nothing to negotiate. Whether you consider this a good thing or bad thing is very much personal choice.
The flip side is of course; Charlie loses. I would guess not a lot will change. Perhaps the company will go even more stingy with extendees... not sure. It will however, put to bed the "discrimination" argument for a time.
ATY; great summary of the obvious
... are you arguing for "Funding" or against?
As far as the Funding goes "convenient excuse" or not discrimination is what this is soley about. If Charlie wins; the company will not be able to force a UK based pilot to retire, or take a pay cut due to age, or use the 3 month clause to impose a new contract because he is of a certain age. As night follows day, this ruling will be used on the European bases and could possibly extend through to OZ and NZ given they have historically linked legal systems. HK could get very interesting on the Corporate Governance front. Basically, the Genie is out of the bottle and there will be nothing to negotiate. Whether you consider this a good thing or bad thing is very much personal choice.
The flip side is of course; Charlie loses. I would guess not a lot will change. Perhaps the company will go even more stingy with extendees... not sure. It will however, put to bed the "discrimination" argument for a time.
ATY; great summary of the obvious
... are you arguing for "Funding" or against?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can of worms.....
IF the appeal is 'won', there is a whole new can of worms available freely to all.... which the Co. may solve by closing the EU bases. If the CofA rule that UK law has jurisdiction in the case of a foreign tailed aircraft crew, it follows that UK tax law can/will also apply, the EU is the same......
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitsune
To succeed Charlie will have to not only get around the Foreign Registered issue, but also counter the Company's Defence; which I suspect will be robust. So, a successful Appeal is far more difficult than some posters will have you believe.
Undoubtedly a successful Appeal could cause the NI issue to be re-visited: I think the tax issue has at least been "road-mapped" and shouldn't change much.
However, the compensation for those forced to retire and/or those who have been working on reduced pay/no pension solely because of their age will be "eye-watering" for the company; not sure what the company's response will be (apart from a House of Lord's appeal.. a la George Crofts)...
My understanding is that the Employment Tribunal had limitations for unfair dismissal awards (Crofts); I understand no such limitation exist for Discrimination.
HBOS manager claims bankers ridiculed her with sex 'slur' | The Sun |News
In case the link doesn't work, it is a Muslim female banker suing HBOS for GBP16.7m for Racial and sexual harassment....hence the phrase... "the Genie will be out of bottle.." I would guess the Europeans and ultimately the Ozzies and Kiwis will not look kindly upon any proven Discrimination.... that of course is many years away..
In the meantime apathy will rule... if anyone can be @rsed..
Just thought... MFL claiming damages for "hurt feelings"... heck.. I would fund that case myself for pure entertainment value
Undoubtedly a successful Appeal could cause the NI issue to be re-visited: I think the tax issue has at least been "road-mapped" and shouldn't change much.
However, the compensation for those forced to retire and/or those who have been working on reduced pay/no pension solely because of their age will be "eye-watering" for the company; not sure what the company's response will be (apart from a House of Lord's appeal.. a la George Crofts)...
My understanding is that the Employment Tribunal had limitations for unfair dismissal awards (Crofts); I understand no such limitation exist for Discrimination.
HBOS manager claims bankers ridiculed her with sex 'slur' | The Sun |News
In case the link doesn't work, it is a Muslim female banker suing HBOS for GBP16.7m for Racial and sexual harassment....hence the phrase... "the Genie will be out of bottle.." I would guess the Europeans and ultimately the Ozzies and Kiwis will not look kindly upon any proven Discrimination.... that of course is many years away..
In the meantime apathy will rule... if anyone can be @rsed..
Just thought... MFL claiming damages for "hurt feelings"... heck.. I would fund that case myself for pure entertainment value
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 5th Feb 2009 at 08:52.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam,
I'll respond to your slur from the CX 872 thread here.
So my last post got to you did it?
I think someone that posts several times a day, and who's total post count is over 350, shouldn't be throwing stones at someone who's made 44 posts. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle.....
It's funny how people see things the way they want to. Watching that video didn't remind me of the older guys in this debate. But rather the foot-stomping attempts by the junior pilots demanding a vote!
After all Liam, you're the one repeatedly slamming your hand down and demanding responses from Cyril.
I've stated my points, and you've stated yours (ad nauseam). So let's wait and see if your side gets 10 percent...which I predict you will. You can then declare victory, and we'll go backwards from there as we proceed to a bitter EGM vote.
Well done.
Raven
I'll respond to your slur from the CX 872 thread here.
So my last post got to you did it?
I think someone that posts several times a day, and who's total post count is over 350, shouldn't be throwing stones at someone who's made 44 posts. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle.....
It's funny how people see things the way they want to. Watching that video didn't remind me of the older guys in this debate. But rather the foot-stomping attempts by the junior pilots demanding a vote!
After all Liam, you're the one repeatedly slamming your hand down and demanding responses from Cyril.
I've stated my points, and you've stated yours (ad nauseam). So let's wait and see if your side gets 10 percent...which I predict you will. You can then declare victory, and we'll go backwards from there as we proceed to a bitter EGM vote.
Well done.
Raven
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven11
"I've stated my points, and you've stated yours (ad nauseam). So let's wait and see if your side gets 10 percent...which I predict you will. You can then declare victory, and we'll go backwards from there as we proceed to a bitter EGM vote."
I think this debate has been useful. I would like to see the 10% achieved as I feel the membership has to then tackle the issues the funding raises. I will not proclaim that as a victory. I am a bit uncomfortable with the "your side" comment, because should this actually come to a vote, I have purposefully kept an open mind and have no idea as to which way I would vote.
Experience has shown an apathetic turnout for AOA votes, so any vote will be determined by the wording and the subsequent 50 or 66% majority required. Should funding be denied or endorsed by an apathetic vote I wont be on here claiming a victory... in fact it will be a further endorsement for the "You get the Union you deserve" brigade...
I think this debate has been useful. I would like to see the 10% achieved as I feel the membership has to then tackle the issues the funding raises. I will not proclaim that as a victory. I am a bit uncomfortable with the "your side" comment, because should this actually come to a vote, I have purposefully kept an open mind and have no idea as to which way I would vote.
Experience has shown an apathetic turnout for AOA votes, so any vote will be determined by the wording and the subsequent 50 or 66% majority required. Should funding be denied or endorsed by an apathetic vote I wont be on here claiming a victory... in fact it will be a further endorsement for the "You get the Union you deserve" brigade...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam and friends
You guys would be better off putting your efforts into stopping your junior mates falling over themselves taking freighter commands years out of seniority and screwing you over. That would be a gravy train you should try to stop or would you like BPP for that as well. Fellas your contract is a mess...concentrate to fix that up and stop wasting your time on something that in the overall scheme of things is unimportant but potentially harmful to unity
You guys would be better off putting your efforts into stopping your junior mates falling over themselves taking freighter commands years out of seniority and screwing you over. That would be a gravy train you should try to stop or would you like BPP for that as well. Fellas your contract is a mess...concentrate to fix that up and stop wasting your time on something that in the overall scheme of things is unimportant but potentially harmful to unity