AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Liam,
How on earth can you call 93% apathetic for not supporting the petition. Lets face it, it was not a vote, it was a petition and if you didn't support it you didn't have to do anything. It shows that the majority did not agree with it and felt the GC were doing their job.
I've followed this thread with some interest and some of the claims (from both viewpoints) have been absurd but the rabid untruths and slanted claims made over the last few days really lose any right thinking persons respect or interest.
How on earth can you call 93% apathetic for not supporting the petition. Lets face it, it was not a vote, it was a petition and if you didn't support it you didn't have to do anything. It shows that the majority did not agree with it and felt the GC were doing their job.
I've followed this thread with some interest and some of the claims (from both viewpoints) have been absurd but the rabid untruths and slanted claims made over the last few days really lose any right thinking persons respect or interest.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact of the matter is that the appeal is to decide whether a U.K. court has jurisdiction in the matter on a foreign tailed aircraft. If that is decided in the affirmative, (which IMHO is extremely unlikely due to the reciprocity in other jurisdictions), then there will be the case afterwards to decide if the practice is discriminatory. See the Crofts case for the time and money this will cost.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB
First and foremost, I have no issue with how the Motion was dealt with: democracy in action.
"How on earth can you call 93% apathetic for not supporting the petition"
Easy... employ the same funky logic Cyril did when he said...
"...93% of the membership did not support the petition.."
I recall that in Sep 07 the GC turned down an AOA negotiated deal that included what Charlie is seeking. In that failed deal was what we now call COS08 and a 10% "staged" payrise. The seemingly unpalatable COS08 has been "accepted" by the members, a 10% payrise has been replaced by a 0-3% payrise (the rest of the company got 5%) and all this time the majority of the members have (secretly) believed "RA65-no BPP" was the way forward.
Clearly, some very confused thinking by the membership.....
"How on earth can you call 93% apathetic for not supporting the petition"
Easy... employ the same funky logic Cyril did when he said...
"...93% of the membership did not support the petition.."
I recall that in Sep 07 the GC turned down an AOA negotiated deal that included what Charlie is seeking. In that failed deal was what we now call COS08 and a 10% "staged" payrise. The seemingly unpalatable COS08 has been "accepted" by the members, a 10% payrise has been replaced by a 0-3% payrise (the rest of the company got 5%) and all this time the majority of the members have (secretly) believed "RA65-no BPP" was the way forward.
Clearly, some very confused thinking by the membership.....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: asia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that we had a vote on financial support for a fellow member who was denied loss of license insurance, but no vote was required in this case.
At the end of the day it's the members funds and they should have some say as to were they are directed.
At the end of the day it's the members funds and they should have some say as to were they are directed.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Between a rock
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the same logic suggest that given the over 55's have accepted a pay cut to freighter scales without an appeal until now that they all accept it?
I didn't contact the AOA but have heard reasoned argument that has led me to believe that I would be unlikely to support a vote to finance the court action.
Yes, I am part of the apathetic 93% but i can live with it!
I didn't contact the AOA but have heard reasoned argument that has led me to believe that I would be unlikely to support a vote to finance the court action.
Yes, I am part of the apathetic 93% but i can live with it!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify the RA 65 proponents position. Are you guys for 65 but WITH compensation for guys who are now having progression pushed back by 5-10 years or are you in the "I'm alright Jack, bugger the rest of you" frame of mind? Why would any pilot want a deal that doesn't include compensation for those it negatively affects? Does sinking the boot in make getting what you want so much sweeter? I would suggest that most younger guys would happily accept RA65 if they were looked after as well.
And as for BPP there are probably quite a few blokes out there that take exception to you saying they shouldn't be getting paid like you if they're not sitting in the left seat. A lot of them are pissed off they aren't getting the chance.
Rant over.
And as for BPP there are probably quite a few blokes out there that take exception to you saying they shouldn't be getting paid like you if they're not sitting in the left seat. A lot of them are pissed off they aren't getting the chance.
Rant over.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: hong kong
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
goalposts
Rhoshamboe...good one!
Goalposts are always changing and sadly, like it or not, part of the intrinsic mechanism of the modern airline is all about adaptation. I know this sounds like a management tow but its just the way it is now to effect survival in an era of deep depression. Its hard enuff when things are going well...and yes, we still get shafted, (opportunism of divisive labour groups comes to mind which paradoxically, mirrors the debacle that is the AOA) but the spin has always been a cycle between serendipity and hardship. The mid 80's saw rapid commands after a long period of command famine,(Last Officer Gosper?), to 4 year S/O sojourns and now even longer periods in the cruise seat before F/O upgrade. Retirement change, like global warming is an inevitable feature of natural shift and we just have to deal with it as best we can. Mitigation measures may work well with the BA's and Qantas's of the world but Cx has always had its unique and intransigent way of managing change and in the end, no amount of argument and debate within the pilot group will alter this.
Strangely, it seems in all of this, no mention is really made of the business of seniority. The "has beens" are chastised, often ridiculed for occupying the LHS and little truck is given to experience. No other industry I know of begins to either reverse a salary scale alongside longevity in career or openly castigates its senior mentors. The periodic time scale of F/O, S/O to command has always been a fickle model but like the cycles of recruitment, it is driven by profit and the engine of change. We interfere at our peril.
Goalposts are always changing and sadly, like it or not, part of the intrinsic mechanism of the modern airline is all about adaptation. I know this sounds like a management tow but its just the way it is now to effect survival in an era of deep depression. Its hard enuff when things are going well...and yes, we still get shafted, (opportunism of divisive labour groups comes to mind which paradoxically, mirrors the debacle that is the AOA) but the spin has always been a cycle between serendipity and hardship. The mid 80's saw rapid commands after a long period of command famine,(Last Officer Gosper?), to 4 year S/O sojourns and now even longer periods in the cruise seat before F/O upgrade. Retirement change, like global warming is an inevitable feature of natural shift and we just have to deal with it as best we can. Mitigation measures may work well with the BA's and Qantas's of the world but Cx has always had its unique and intransigent way of managing change and in the end, no amount of argument and debate within the pilot group will alter this.
Strangely, it seems in all of this, no mention is really made of the business of seniority. The "has beens" are chastised, often ridiculed for occupying the LHS and little truck is given to experience. No other industry I know of begins to either reverse a salary scale alongside longevity in career or openly castigates its senior mentors. The periodic time scale of F/O, S/O to command has always been a fickle model but like the cycles of recruitment, it is driven by profit and the engine of change. We interfere at our peril.
Liam,
I have to say the hypocrisy on this thread has no bounds.
"I recall that in Sep 07 the GC turned down an AOA negotiated deal that included what Charlie is seeking. "
The GC did not turn it down. The GC did not feel they could recommend it to the membership but were quite happy to put it to a membership vote. CX then withdrew it so the AOA membership would not have the opportunity to vote on it.
On an item like the CM case the GC felt confident in supporting it after much discussion and have been criticised on this thread for that. Now you are also criticising the GC for wanting to put a major item to the membership.
I have to say the hypocrisy on this thread has no bounds.
"I recall that in Sep 07 the GC turned down an AOA negotiated deal that included what Charlie is seeking. "
The GC did not turn it down. The GC did not feel they could recommend it to the membership but were quite happy to put it to a membership vote. CX then withdrew it so the AOA membership would not have the opportunity to vote on it.
On an item like the CM case the GC felt confident in supporting it after much discussion and have been criticised on this thread for that. Now you are also criticising the GC for wanting to put a major item to the membership.
Actually Deadduck a lot more money goes in the top and is used for all. With higher subs and lesser insurance premiums those at the top are putting more in than the subsidized joiners at the bottom.
As for your assertions that the AOA only represents 60% of its members you can put them with the rest of your rantings. I'm sure the monkey can remember where
As for your assertions that the AOA only represents 60% of its members you can put them with the rest of your rantings. I'm sure the monkey can remember where
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB
Clearly, we have differing views on history. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.
Even taking your spun view of the events of 07, being... "The GC did not feel they could recommend it to the membership ..." For the purposes of Pprune I am still happy to characterize that as "turned down".... what would you call it... "accepted"?
You miss the point, I am not criticizing the GC on whether they should go to the membership on this issue or that; I crititize the membership. I believe the projected results of CM's Appeal do not sit well with what I believe to be the current membership's views on RA. I base that view on a number of historical issues; the rejection, or if that's too strong for you, the "non-recommendation" of the 07 deal is but one. The AOA's survey and the President's subsequent utube video would be another. However, if the membership have silently changed their views or can't be bothered to support the Petition... whose fault is that... certainly not the GC's!
NC came on here and wrote a post which I think dealt with the issue of seeking the views of the membership. The AOA's rules deal with this issue of potential differences between the GC and members. The Petition failed to gain the necessary support; the GC is more than mandated to proceed; the system worked... big tick... move on...
Whilst I may harbour concerns about the Appeal, I have never been critical of how the GC have handled this matter. My views have been consistent...
Even taking your spun view of the events of 07, being... "The GC did not feel they could recommend it to the membership ..." For the purposes of Pprune I am still happy to characterize that as "turned down".... what would you call it... "accepted"?
You miss the point, I am not criticizing the GC on whether they should go to the membership on this issue or that; I crititize the membership. I believe the projected results of CM's Appeal do not sit well with what I believe to be the current membership's views on RA. I base that view on a number of historical issues; the rejection, or if that's too strong for you, the "non-recommendation" of the 07 deal is but one. The AOA's survey and the President's subsequent utube video would be another. However, if the membership have silently changed their views or can't be bothered to support the Petition... whose fault is that... certainly not the GC's!
NC came on here and wrote a post which I think dealt with the issue of seeking the views of the membership. The AOA's rules deal with this issue of potential differences between the GC and members. The Petition failed to gain the necessary support; the GC is more than mandated to proceed; the system worked... big tick... move on...
Whilst I may harbour concerns about the Appeal, I have never been critical of how the GC have handled this matter. My views have been consistent...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...of course they will, and that is why their protestations of the moment are so hypocritical. All the FO/SO's are against 65...until THEY make Captain, then.....they're all for it. The argument is pointless based on this irrefutable logic.
ps. new contracts go to the printers on Friday....
ps. new contracts go to the printers on Friday....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some have the financial agility to retire comfortably at 55. It's all about the life you lead and the decisions you make. Don't cry to me about the financial crisis. If you were properly positioned heading into a 55 retirement, then you wouldn't have gotten cleaned out by the current downfall. My brother is 38 and could retire tomorrow. It's all about the decisions we make. This thread needs to die now.
box
box
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One day, everyone on this thread will be 55+...
Negative! For the significant majority who signed up to CX knowing that 55 was the end of the road, a time line to command could be mapped out reasonably accurately hence an exit plan be instigated based on future earnings potential. That exit, in many cases, most certainly did not involve still being here at 55. This is the point that frustrates so many. The goal posts have been moved.
Negative! For the significant majority who signed up to CX knowing that 55 was the end of the road, a time line to command could be mapped out reasonably accurately hence an exit plan be instigated based on future earnings potential. That exit, in many cases, most certainly did not involve still being here at 55. This is the point that frustrates so many. The goal posts have been moved.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negative! For the significant majority who signed up to CX knowing that 55 was the end of the road, a time line to command could be mapped out reasonably accurately hence an exit plan be instigated based on future earnings potential. That exit, in many cases, most certainly did not involve still being here at 55. This is the point that frustrates so many. The goal posts have been moved.
Which is the major point some of you children do not seem to understand. Age 65 will allow some of us to recoup what we have lost and before you all start screaming "A scale fatcat", I'm B scale! You are all whining that you don't want your contracts affected well join the club boys and girls.
Some have the financial agility to retire comfortably at 55. It's all about the life you lead and the decisions you make. Don't cry to me about the financial crisis. If you were properly positioned heading into a 55 retirement, then you wouldn't have gotten cleaned out by the current downfall. My brother is 38 and could retire tomorrow. It's all about the decisions we make. This thread needs to die now.