AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so I understand;
1.The Appeal has merit because we say so (sorry...can't say anymore because it might tell the other side the grounds of our appeal
2. We don't now how much it will cost; but we know it's affordable....
3. If we win; we are not sure what effect it will have (probably no effect on those based out of the UK)
4. If we lose... we don't know how much it will cost; but future (junior) members will just have to pay because the current (senior) members will be gone.
5. If you don't like the 4 points above; tough... the AOA's not a democracy you know...
Just in case anyone values a contrary view; I would have thought the foreign registered aircraft legislation was a show-stopper. I'm guessing you are going to argue that RA 55 is an infringement of Human Rights and will therefore over-ride any legislation. However, no one if saying that anyone over 55 is incapable of flying an aircraft. Age 55 is the point where our contract ends; jobs for life are a thing of past. Other contracts end after a fixed term, when a project finishes, after a certain notice period, ours at age 55. It is not ageism; just a simple, transparent way of defining the end point of all our contracts.
1.The Appeal has merit because we say so (sorry...can't say anymore because it might tell the other side the grounds of our appeal
2. We don't now how much it will cost; but we know it's affordable....
3. If we win; we are not sure what effect it will have (probably no effect on those based out of the UK)
4. If we lose... we don't know how much it will cost; but future (junior) members will just have to pay because the current (senior) members will be gone.
5. If you don't like the 4 points above; tough... the AOA's not a democracy you know...
Just in case anyone values a contrary view; I would have thought the foreign registered aircraft legislation was a show-stopper. I'm guessing you are going to argue that RA 55 is an infringement of Human Rights and will therefore over-ride any legislation. However, no one if saying that anyone over 55 is incapable of flying an aircraft. Age 55 is the point where our contract ends; jobs for life are a thing of past. Other contracts end after a fixed term, when a project finishes, after a certain notice period, ours at age 55. It is not ageism; just a simple, transparent way of defining the end point of all our contracts.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Benefits Service Desk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOA cleared the court case funds expenditure with the Company Beneits Centre.
They got to the green light to spend as much of it's members' funds on any worthless causes they wish to pursue.
Here to serve
They got to the green light to spend as much of it's members' funds on any worthless causes they wish to pursue.
Here to serve
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...a couple of points: a) if you don't like what the AOA leadership is proposing, either vote, and accept the result, or resign. B) I can't believe that some of you have nothing better to do over Christmas other than spew bitterness and discontent over the internet. Get a life....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem very likely that many, if not all, of the GC should resign if this vote of no confidence was to go ahead. That should include the president.
If a signifcant amount of members - after the annual election has been completed and trust has been placed in the president and his GC - were to blatenly (and openly to the outside world... including CX management) voice their no-confidence in the judgement and functioning og the AOA leadership, then I would certainly resign my spot on the committe and ask others (wiser then me) to pick up the load.
It would not surprise me at all if management is posting among us in this thread, trying to split the AOA and make it obvious to those we are dealing with that the cracks run deep.
"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions." PPRuNe Website
In fact, posters like Liam Gallagher may very well be management, for the AOA makes it very clear that the usefull way forward when disagreeing with your union is to use the correct channels, send emails to your representatives, talk to other AOA members, visit the office, call the president, vote at elections or stand for committee.....but do not use public forums, viewable to management, when venting such strong grievances. Doing so destroys the integrity of the AOA president and the authority of the GC to speak on behalf of its members when dealing with the company. Who would even bother dealing with a leadership group that has no negotiating authority and must return to the voting mass for a referendum onevery decision? What would even be the point of negotiations or electing a negotiating body?
Obviously from his/her history Liam is not management, but the postings are of the exact wording which a manager trying to split and discredit the AOA ledaership would use. I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right. But please consider the damage you are doing to the AOAs position.
We're nothing without a unified front.
If a signifcant amount of members - after the annual election has been completed and trust has been placed in the president and his GC - were to blatenly (and openly to the outside world... including CX management) voice their no-confidence in the judgement and functioning og the AOA leadership, then I would certainly resign my spot on the committe and ask others (wiser then me) to pick up the load.
It would not surprise me at all if management is posting among us in this thread, trying to split the AOA and make it obvious to those we are dealing with that the cracks run deep.
"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions." PPRuNe Website
In fact, posters like Liam Gallagher may very well be management, for the AOA makes it very clear that the usefull way forward when disagreeing with your union is to use the correct channels, send emails to your representatives, talk to other AOA members, visit the office, call the president, vote at elections or stand for committee.....but do not use public forums, viewable to management, when venting such strong grievances. Doing so destroys the integrity of the AOA president and the authority of the GC to speak on behalf of its members when dealing with the company. Who would even bother dealing with a leadership group that has no negotiating authority and must return to the voting mass for a referendum onevery decision? What would even be the point of negotiations or electing a negotiating body?
Obviously from his/her history Liam is not management, but the postings are of the exact wording which a manager trying to split and discredit the AOA ledaership would use. I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right. But please consider the damage you are doing to the AOAs position.
We're nothing without a unified front.
Last edited by quadspeed; 27th Dec 2008 at 04:12.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quadspeed
"...then I would certainly resign my spot on the committe and ask others (wiser then me) to pick up the load."
You would have us believe you are on the GC... rather than stomp on contrary views or hide behind the lame "united front"; why not try and argue me down from your position of knowledge? If you are unable to despatch me: how do you think your argument will go against the company's lawyers?
Further, this issue is not black and white; there are good arguments on both sides. The views I expressed may not be my personal view; but they are a precis of the "global" argument in favour of a Retirement Age that is being fought out in many workplaces around the world. Indeed, most AOA members are aware of the argument and perhaps they are rightly nervous about committing their money to a fight that is far from an assured-win.
How about one of you promoting the Appeal (ATY are back from Chrimbo hols yet?) tone down the personal abuse and attack the argument... to use the venacular... play the ball and not the man...
You would have us believe you are on the GC... rather than stomp on contrary views or hide behind the lame "united front"; why not try and argue me down from your position of knowledge? If you are unable to despatch me: how do you think your argument will go against the company's lawyers?
Further, this issue is not black and white; there are good arguments on both sides. The views I expressed may not be my personal view; but they are a precis of the "global" argument in favour of a Retirement Age that is being fought out in many workplaces around the world. Indeed, most AOA members are aware of the argument and perhaps they are rightly nervous about committing their money to a fight that is far from an assured-win.
How about one of you promoting the Appeal (ATY are back from Chrimbo hols yet?) tone down the personal abuse and attack the argument... to use the venacular... play the ball and not the man...
Ageism
Some guys working for SIA based LHR recently won a substantial settlement (for substanatial read a year's basic salary) after being dismissed aged 60. Won both on ageism and unfair dismissal in the UK courts (actually and out of court settlement) whilst flying Sin reg aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to firewall:
Mate, I couldn't agree more, that where for example, the company is stiffing you on a D&G, leave, basing, entitlement to bypass pay or riding roughshod over any other aspect that is in your CoS, then yes, the AOA does, and should, come in to bat for you.
But those are cases where they are your rights, and what is enshrined in your contract is significantly easier to fight for, than something that is not.
Thats why this case is different, not only is it an appeal to a case that has already been lost once, but it is where an individual is trying to prove that something that is not in his contract, should be.
For what it's worth, I agree with him, it should be, but I don't believe many of our younger crew think this is the right way to go about it. The end result either way may have ramifications for better or for worse depending on what your rank is and where you are based.
Clearly with so many people potentially being affected by the result, the question remains, why not put it to a vote? The only reason I can see that it hasn't been, is that the AOA think it may fail to pass.
It must have been a complex decision, as the AOA want crew to be able to have the option to work beyond 55, and most crew want the option of the same, even if some, like me, dont plan to do so.
I would still therefore suggest the better option may be for the AOA to keep nutting out a solution with the company, rather than pursuing a track that may well be against the views of what could be a significant percentage of the membership. In the current industrial and financial climate, the membership needs to be united, not divided
Raven, you may be right, I asked a couple of HK based 40ish skippers their views, and they said they were both in favour of funding, as were many of their ilk, so I accept that anti feeling may be more prevalent in the FO ranks, but there are an awful lot of 'em!
Clearly however, the only transparent way for the younger members to see their views are at least being recorded, is to have the matter voted on. If it passes, it will have done so on its merits, problem solved. If it fails, then the AOA will have to get back to negotiating the retirement age issue with the company. It still seems that they need it more than we do.
Either way, the democratic process can remain intact, and hopefully the membership can remain united too.
it is the AOA's remit to support ALL of it's members, not just the majority. If the battle were to benefit only 1 pilot then it would still be fought.
But those are cases where they are your rights, and what is enshrined in your contract is significantly easier to fight for, than something that is not.
Thats why this case is different, not only is it an appeal to a case that has already been lost once, but it is where an individual is trying to prove that something that is not in his contract, should be.
For what it's worth, I agree with him, it should be, but I don't believe many of our younger crew think this is the right way to go about it. The end result either way may have ramifications for better or for worse depending on what your rank is and where you are based.
Clearly with so many people potentially being affected by the result, the question remains, why not put it to a vote? The only reason I can see that it hasn't been, is that the AOA think it may fail to pass.
It must have been a complex decision, as the AOA want crew to be able to have the option to work beyond 55, and most crew want the option of the same, even if some, like me, dont plan to do so.
I would still therefore suggest the better option may be for the AOA to keep nutting out a solution with the company, rather than pursuing a track that may well be against the views of what could be a significant percentage of the membership. In the current industrial and financial climate, the membership needs to be united, not divided
Raven, you may be right, I asked a couple of HK based 40ish skippers their views, and they said they were both in favour of funding, as were many of their ilk, so I accept that anti feeling may be more prevalent in the FO ranks, but there are an awful lot of 'em!
Clearly however, the only transparent way for the younger members to see their views are at least being recorded, is to have the matter voted on. If it passes, it will have done so on its merits, problem solved. If it fails, then the AOA will have to get back to negotiating the retirement age issue with the company. It still seems that they need it more than we do.
Either way, the democratic process can remain intact, and hopefully the membership can remain united too.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be Sure You Want A Vote
If you are going to deny a member in good standing the right to legal funding on the basis to appease the younger members, then you had better be prepared for a major backlash from the more senior members also.
By pass pay is the major stumbling block between an agreed increase in retirement age and I can assure you a considerable amount of senior captains are appalled that the majority of by pass pay is going to FO's on a base whom have zero intention of completing a command course,
The intent was not to pay someone not willing to upgrade and give him/her something for nothing.
You might find you may also be voting on a directive to negotiate BPP away.
As has been asked several times on this thread, Are you sure this is what you want"?
By pass pay is the major stumbling block between an agreed increase in retirement age and I can assure you a considerable amount of senior captains are appalled that the majority of by pass pay is going to FO's on a base whom have zero intention of completing a command course,
The intent was not to pay someone not willing to upgrade and give him/her something for nothing.
You might find you may also be voting on a directive to negotiate BPP away.
As has been asked several times on this thread, Are you sure this is what you want"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been asked several times on this thread, Are you sure this is what you want"?
To pass on an analogy eloquently told to me by an SO who can't afford a car in HK: "Some guys have a Ferrari, but I dont have one, and even though I want one, the company wont give me one. I want the AOA to fund my legal case against the company so that they have to give me one. I know its not in my COS, but so many other people have a Ferrari, that I want one too. Its not fair
" It's unrealistic I'm sure we all agree, but you can't deny the similarities with the principle of the appeal/case in question.
Personally, I have nothing to lose or gain by this particular action, as I hope to leave soon before I am 55. You may therefore ask - why raise the issue? - I was interested to see a broader cross section of views, as almost all of those I had received previously were from SO's and FO's, and almost all were against. The whole aspect therefore seemed less than transparent and was perceived by many to benefit but a few.
An earlier poster, Raven IIRC, talked about the contempt of the younger members towards older guys. Surely that would only come around if we have lost their respect. It takes a long time to earn, but can be lost quickly. It is something which is earned through ones actions and by leading well. When it appears ones actions are selfish or self-serving, then the risk of losing that respect increases.
Do we need their respect? - I would humbly suggest that we dont, but it does our united cause as a whole no good to have a divided membership.
As a genuine question, if the appeal has such a high probability of success, would not costs be awarded to the appellant? Therefore why should the membership have to fund such a shoe-in case when the appellant will be awarded costs?..... However, if it's not such a surefire thing, then why commit to a likelihood of wasting AOA funds when the result will remain exactly as it is now?
The bypass-pay issue you raised for those on a base is an interesting aspect. Like you, I don't believe the intent of the CoS clause was intended to cover those on a base, who, now they are paid as a Capt, have no intention of coming back to HK and are happy to wait xxyrs until their number comes up to do a cmd on the base. However it is in the CoS, and perhaps could be used against the company as leverage by the AOA/membership for the NRA issue. We all know what they meant to pay for, but hey they wrote the CoS, so now they have to live with it until we agree to change it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam Gallagher.....
No, I would not. But if I was on the GC, I would consider my resignation. I believe that's what I wrote.
I think my argument went along the following lines, two days ago, on the same thread.....
"I'll gladly let my AOA fees cover such a court battle, because any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination. If you're going to extend anybody at all, it shall be at the same payscale as before. That would serve every CXpilots interest, especially those who want extenders gone altogether.
All in all, I don't want the company to extent anybody until we get the issue solved, including bypass bay for all CoS99 and before. But before we get to that, I certainly don't want anybody extending on worse terms.....because that makes it appealing to CX management. Make it expensive as hell to extend anybody.... which is exactly what the AOA is backing in this case.
Supporting the AOA in this issue is definitively not the same as supporting extending guys beyond 55. So please don't confuse the two."
Exactly. Which is why I wrote...
"I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right."
I honestly thought I did....
I asked you to "use the correct channels, send emails to your representatives, talk to other AOA members, visit the office, call the president, vote at elections or stand for committee"..... I don't see how that equates to "personal abuse"? If nothing else, I am playing the ball, ending the post (once again) with....
"I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right."
You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?
You would have us believe you are on the GC...
...why not try and argue me down from your position of knowledge? If you are unable to despatch me: how do you think your argument will go against the company's lawyers?
"I'll gladly let my AOA fees cover such a court battle, because any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination. If you're going to extend anybody at all, it shall be at the same payscale as before. That would serve every CXpilots interest, especially those who want extenders gone altogether.
All in all, I don't want the company to extent anybody until we get the issue solved, including bypass bay for all CoS99 and before. But before we get to that, I certainly don't want anybody extending on worse terms.....because that makes it appealing to CX management. Make it expensive as hell to extend anybody.... which is exactly what the AOA is backing in this case.
Supporting the AOA in this issue is definitively not the same as supporting extending guys beyond 55. So please don't confuse the two."
Further, this issue is not black and white; there are good arguments on both sides. The views I expressed may not be my personal view; but they are a precis of the "global" argument in favour of a Retirement Age that is being fought out in many workplaces around the world.
"I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right."
How about one of you promoting the Appeal (ATY are back from Chrimbo hols yet?) tone down the personal abuse and attack the argument... to use the venacular... play the ball and not the man.
I asked you to "use the correct channels, send emails to your representatives, talk to other AOA members, visit the office, call the president, vote at elections or stand for committee"..... I don't see how that equates to "personal abuse"? If nothing else, I am playing the ball, ending the post (once again) with....
"I honestly have no problem with your disgreement on the issue at hand....you might even be right."
You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?
Last edited by quadspeed; 28th Dec 2008 at 06:32.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quadspeed
I read your posts accurately, perhaps that's the problem.
The only "if" condition in the second paragraph of your post yesterday was... "If a signifcant amount of members .."; the rest of your post lead me to believe you were on the GC. Thanks for clarifying your position.
No pilot in his right mind wants pilots extended on reduced conditions; it's bad for him and bad for me. However, it's happening and been happening for such a long time, it's entrenched. Your point, whilst vaild, is outdated. The question is, and has been for a number of years, what can we do about it?
The AOA has been very slow to act on the BPP issue, almost to the point of impotency. The impact of a successful Appeal in the UK is hard quantify. Some argue it would only affect those on the UK base, others say that it may prompt the Company to issue new contracts to all... be careful what you wish for....
You, and others, blandly say...."...any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination." Whilst I wholly sympathize with the argument, it is incumbent upon you to come up with some case history rather than a bland statement.
Is it clearly ageism? No one was holding a gun to the retirees' heads; they didn't have to accept the lesser conditions. They could walk away at 55 at the end of their contract. They wilfully accepted the lesser conditions. Further, I'm just not certain the Law or even society is that interested in a bunch of spoilt overpaid pilots. I can't help but feel that if this issue was race or religion (one in particular..ahem..) rather than age, we would even be discussing an Appeal.
Finally, you were very selective in your quotes of your previous posts. Try quoting the bit were you float me out as Management, merely because I express a view contrary to your view of "the party line". Whilst, I readily accept your retract the idea in the next paragraph it was clearly an attempt to play the old "they're either with us or against us" tactic.
The only "if" condition in the second paragraph of your post yesterday was... "If a signifcant amount of members .."; the rest of your post lead me to believe you were on the GC. Thanks for clarifying your position.
No pilot in his right mind wants pilots extended on reduced conditions; it's bad for him and bad for me. However, it's happening and been happening for such a long time, it's entrenched. Your point, whilst vaild, is outdated. The question is, and has been for a number of years, what can we do about it?
The AOA has been very slow to act on the BPP issue, almost to the point of impotency. The impact of a successful Appeal in the UK is hard quantify. Some argue it would only affect those on the UK base, others say that it may prompt the Company to issue new contracts to all... be careful what you wish for....
You, and others, blandly say...."...any reduction in T&C as a result of age is, clearly, age discrimination." Whilst I wholly sympathize with the argument, it is incumbent upon you to come up with some case history rather than a bland statement.
Is it clearly ageism? No one was holding a gun to the retirees' heads; they didn't have to accept the lesser conditions. They could walk away at 55 at the end of their contract. They wilfully accepted the lesser conditions. Further, I'm just not certain the Law or even society is that interested in a bunch of spoilt overpaid pilots. I can't help but feel that if this issue was race or religion (one in particular..ahem..) rather than age, we would even be discussing an Appeal.
Finally, you were very selective in your quotes of your previous posts. Try quoting the bit were you float me out as Management, merely because I express a view contrary to your view of "the party line". Whilst, I readily accept your retract the idea in the next paragraph it was clearly an attempt to play the old "they're either with us or against us" tactic.
`simple
Despite all the drama now about the handful of A scale guys staying on...(whose conditions will be dramatically worse if CX implements 65 anyway)..judging by the way they talk at work I think the majority of B scale captains would LOVE to fly past 55 to play catch up with their incomes over a CX career span.
I think junior crew have been pissed off at A scale for so long that they feel it's in their own interests to get rid of all the senior crew....HOWEVER..
once that is achieved i believe the boot will be on the other foot and they will jump over the fence and vote for age 65 as they will now be discussing their own career outcome.
54 + 1 day is stupidly young to retire captains regardless of who they work for.
Natural attrition and CX attitude to it's staff will see all the senior guys go anyway after a year or two.
I think junior crew have been pissed off at A scale for so long that they feel it's in their own interests to get rid of all the senior crew....HOWEVER..
once that is achieved i believe the boot will be on the other foot and they will jump over the fence and vote for age 65 as they will now be discussing their own career outcome.
54 + 1 day is stupidly young to retire captains regardless of who they work for.
Natural attrition and CX attitude to it's staff will see all the senior guys go anyway after a year or two.
Gosh, I guess CX has been saying that all along and the AOA has been agreeing!!
What makes CX any more truthful now than they have been in the past when NR said RA65 would make commands faster!!
What makes CX any more truthful now than they have been in the past when NR said RA65 would make commands faster!!
Have some respect for the AOA committee members who are identical flight crew to you in every way. The AOA committee has a charter to look after the rights and benefits of all members. They sometimes have conflicting priorities but they do pour their hearts and souls into doing what they think best for the majority.
If you think you can do a better job, then stop whinging here and get off your fat slovenly arse and join the committee yourself.
I am not trying to stifle debate, but for God's sake, have some respect.
If you think you can do a better job, then stop whinging here and get off your fat slovenly arse and join the committee yourself.
I am not trying to stifle debate, but for God's sake, have some respect.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the FO's and SO's who are so badly affected and complaining, how long have you been members of the AOA and did you join under the reduced "cost" scheme or have you been longstanding members?
Memphisto88
Not quite sure what your point is, we would all like a Ferrari but some of us understand that it takes time, not the childish I want it now or I am going to throw the toys out of the cot. Some of the changes that have occurred recently to the COS have definitely benefited the more "junior" members than the senior, BPP on the base being one!
Stillalbatross
What would the time to Command have been in your national carrier?
Liam
Memphisto88
Not quite sure what your point is, we would all like a Ferrari but some of us understand that it takes time, not the childish I want it now or I am going to throw the toys out of the cot. Some of the changes that have occurred recently to the COS have definitely benefited the more "junior" members than the senior, BPP on the base being one!
Stillalbatross
What would the time to Command have been in your national carrier?
Liam
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in time anda space
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should have one vote for every year of AOA membership - or maybe we could have one vote for every IQ point, but then that would unfortunately not marginalise the new joiners as apparently we don't get smarter as we get older. Maybe one vote per stripe? Or one vote per hour in our log book? I am happy with any system that recognises my moral and intellectual superiority over FO/SOs!
captains 'appalled' that based FOs get BPP even though hkg command available
FO/SOs 'appalled' that 15-30 year CX career A scale veterans want more time at the trough at the expense of junior officers
captains quite perturbed at being able to extend past their contractual limit but on lesser conditions. FO/SOs perturbed at having time to command extended due to extendees. captains perplexed at FO/SO perturbation about extensions.
Maybe we will have to rely on democracy to decide? But then again, how can we trust democracy when every one gets one vote? Young non captain types are obviously not as good as us and so might vote incorrectly. If they do so, I will leave the AOA in a huff - then I can sit in my rocking chair for evermore talking about how good I was and how stupid everyone was who joined after me! I know it will be the first time an older generation has ever told the younger generation it didn't know what it was doing!
I will be happy as long as the posts here reflect demagogy and prejudice as most have so far.
captains 'appalled' that based FOs get BPP even though hkg command available
FO/SOs 'appalled' that 15-30 year CX career A scale veterans want more time at the trough at the expense of junior officers
captains quite perturbed at being able to extend past their contractual limit but on lesser conditions. FO/SOs perturbed at having time to command extended due to extendees. captains perplexed at FO/SO perturbation about extensions.
Maybe we will have to rely on democracy to decide? But then again, how can we trust democracy when every one gets one vote? Young non captain types are obviously not as good as us and so might vote incorrectly. If they do so, I will leave the AOA in a huff - then I can sit in my rocking chair for evermore talking about how good I was and how stupid everyone was who joined after me! I know it will be the first time an older generation has ever told the younger generation it didn't know what it was doing!
I will be happy as long as the posts here reflect demagogy and prejudice as most have so far.
Last edited by Hiro Nakimura; 28th Dec 2008 at 22:18.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: "HARD" TO TELL.....
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....they do pour their hearts and souls into doing what they think best for the majority.
You're FUNNY...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman,
Your comment about S/O's and F/O's being long standing members - are you saying they should have joined the AOA before we joined the company? So because an S/O has been in the company 1 year he has no right to contest the breach in his CoS?
Stillalbatros,
The GC knows and has previously published that command time will increase by anywhere between 3 and 10 years. Go reread your updates.
Slaapfan,
If you have never been on the GC then you have no right to comment on whether they do or do not do their best.
This new GC is super responsive to emails that members send in. If you have a complaint then email in. I have seen it first hand. Dont winge here, actually do something constructive and send in your complaints, questions etc. The GC is only 20 people - if everyone had an idea to make things better and actually put fingers to keyboards the GC would be even more effective in make the right decision.
Cheers,
IFP.
Your comment about S/O's and F/O's being long standing members - are you saying they should have joined the AOA before we joined the company? So because an S/O has been in the company 1 year he has no right to contest the breach in his CoS?
Stillalbatros,
The GC knows and has previously published that command time will increase by anywhere between 3 and 10 years. Go reread your updates.
Slaapfan,
If you have never been on the GC then you have no right to comment on whether they do or do not do their best.
This new GC is super responsive to emails that members send in. If you have a complaint then email in. I have seen it first hand. Dont winge here, actually do something constructive and send in your complaints, questions etc. The GC is only 20 people - if everyone had an idea to make things better and actually put fingers to keyboards the GC would be even more effective in make the right decision.
Cheers,
IFP.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril person. If the vote goes against this appeal, you insinuate that the senior members will resign en masse. Well that would be the first time ever the senior guys stood up for anything, shame it will be for all the wrong reasons!!!
The vote will be coming and let the results direct the course of action the AoA should take. If we let this split us then shame on those who resign because of it!!!!!
The vote will be coming and let the results direct the course of action the AoA should take. If we let this split us then shame on those who resign because of it!!!!!