AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how you got that insinuation Fenwicks Girl, just stating that if the younger members want to have a vote on the funding issue for a member in good standing with a valid legal challenge then other issues may raise their ugly head. Let the GC decide the merits, they are your representatives
There are not many crew members out there that think the BPP going to those on a base not willing to return to HKG to do their command is the intent of BPP provisions. BPP is the stumbling block in the retirement age negotiation.
There are not many crew members out there that think the BPP going to those on a base not willing to return to HKG to do their command is the intent of BPP provisions. BPP is the stumbling block in the retirement age negotiation.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it AOA policy to support members in their personal legal issues?
I always understood that the AOA has a mandate to -
1: Support the legal battles of members when it comes to defending their contract
or
2. In case a member gets into legal troubles over some sort of incident /accident at work.
Forgive me if I am wrong but it seems the fight in London is not the AOA's fight.....??
I always understood that the AOA has a mandate to -
1: Support the legal battles of members when it comes to defending their contract
or
2. In case a member gets into legal troubles over some sort of incident /accident at work.
Forgive me if I am wrong but it seems the fight in London is not the AOA's fight.....??
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Mephisto:
If you want another fine example of the "contempt" I spoke of earlier, you need look no further than the example above by Fenwicksgirl.
I quote: "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!!!"
Never stood up for anything he/she says? For all those guys who sweated loosing their jobs in 99, followed by the 49 who did lose their jobs, what a slap in the face.
For all the wrong reasons? There are 41 posts on this thread, the majority argues in favour of this appeal, offering sober and logical reasons for their support. Fenwicksgirl ignores these all, and offers up his venom as he suggests "we" are being immoral and shameful. Go figure.
Well...my close mate, a B scale Captain, is leaving next month. No job, and a family to feed. How immoral of me to suggest that this appeal, that favours pilots, fellow members of the AOA, being forced out of work at the ridiculously young age of 55, deserves the support of the GC, and the membership. How shameful of me.
Far more honorable for me to ignore my mate, and instead support only the issue of bypass pay for S/O's and F/O's. This while my mate collects unemployment pay. According to people like Fenwicksgirl, those are the "right reasons" to abandon fellow members in a popular, though democratic, temper tantrum, by the majority of junior members.
Yeah...I want to be a member of that union!
If you want another fine example of the "contempt" I spoke of earlier, you need look no further than the example above by Fenwicksgirl.
I quote: "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!!!"
Never stood up for anything he/she says? For all those guys who sweated loosing their jobs in 99, followed by the 49 who did lose their jobs, what a slap in the face.
For all the wrong reasons? There are 41 posts on this thread, the majority argues in favour of this appeal, offering sober and logical reasons for their support. Fenwicksgirl ignores these all, and offers up his venom as he suggests "we" are being immoral and shameful. Go figure.
Well...my close mate, a B scale Captain, is leaving next month. No job, and a family to feed. How immoral of me to suggest that this appeal, that favours pilots, fellow members of the AOA, being forced out of work at the ridiculously young age of 55, deserves the support of the GC, and the membership. How shameful of me.
Far more honorable for me to ignore my mate, and instead support only the issue of bypass pay for S/O's and F/O's. This while my mate collects unemployment pay. According to people like Fenwicksgirl, those are the "right reasons" to abandon fellow members in a popular, though democratic, temper tantrum, by the majority of junior members.
Yeah...I want to be a member of that union!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far more honorable for me to ignore my mate, and instead support only the issue of bypass pay for S/O's and F/O's. This while my mate collects unemployment pay.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To "Voiceofreason":
I resent your snide implication.
As far as your question/accusation goes, you're wrong. He does NOT have a P Fund...just like the majority of members who spent time on a base.
And what if he did? Would that somehow entitle you to some kind of recompence?
Are you in the same profession as me? So we've reached a point in our history where not only non-pilots resent pilots, but fellow pilots do as well.
Maybe it is time to retire?
I resent your snide implication.
As far as your question/accusation goes, you're wrong. He does NOT have a P Fund...just like the majority of members who spent time on a base.
And what if he did? Would that somehow entitle you to some kind of recompence?
Are you in the same profession as me? So we've reached a point in our history where not only non-pilots resent pilots, but fellow pilots do as well.
Maybe it is time to retire?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK case is about age discrimination and that effects most pilots in this company. It seems the younger angrier men assume this just effects A scale pilots when in fact it applies to B scalers C scalers and those on many of the other 27 contracts CX has. News Flash....B scale pilots also reach age 55.....and it is starting to occur as per a previous post.
The crux of the issue re the UK case is that A Passenger Captain is about to have his employment terminated on the basis of attaining 55 years of age and that he is a UK resident and pays taxes in a country that has robust age discrimination laws.
Why should the CX Pax Capt be forced to retire at 55 when Dragonair crew, Freighter crew, New joining crew, DEFO's and EX BA and Oasis crew can start at over 60 and go until 65.........It is age discrimination in its purest form.
Further complicating matters is that the By Pass Pay that was meant to compensate for the extensions is being paid to those with little or no intention of upgrading. The very people it was meant to compensate, The Ready Willing and Able FO will not see any BPP, HKG pilots will not get it!!!. , the senior FO on a base playing Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" is laughing his head off at the bolshy angry junior FO fighting his fight for him.
And we want to give the new joining SO with age 65 in his contract BPP as well.
The crux of the issue re the UK case is that A Passenger Captain is about to have his employment terminated on the basis of attaining 55 years of age and that he is a UK resident and pays taxes in a country that has robust age discrimination laws.
Why should the CX Pax Capt be forced to retire at 55 when Dragonair crew, Freighter crew, New joining crew, DEFO's and EX BA and Oasis crew can start at over 60 and go until 65.........It is age discrimination in its purest form.
Further complicating matters is that the By Pass Pay that was meant to compensate for the extensions is being paid to those with little or no intention of upgrading. The very people it was meant to compensate, The Ready Willing and Able FO will not see any BPP, HKG pilots will not get it!!!. , the senior FO on a base playing Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" is laughing his head off at the bolshy angry junior FO fighting his fight for him.
And we want to give the new joining SO with age 65 in his contract BPP as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven, I am sorry that your close friend is about to have no job and a family to feed. Whilst you make it sound like he's only just found out that at 55 he has to leave, and that this is a surprise, I would have hoped he knew how old he was and have been prepared for this for a while. That said, if he was wanting to continue on, then I am genuinely sorry things have not worked out for him.
Any of us who joined with 55 in the contract, always knew that despite the lengthy ongoing talks about extending the NRA, the snails pace of the progress showed to all that it was a situation that was unlikely to be resolved quickly, and that in all probability, we would have to leave unless one was cherry picked from C&T to stay on the pax fleet, or become a trashie on reduced CoS. Personally, I've still got a couple of years to go, but I do not wish to wake up like your friend and go 'Holy cr@p I'm almost 55 what am I gonna do now?', so have been making plans for a while now, as my post 55 plan does not include cx, still will be working, but mainly beer, fishing and golf.
To Raven again, a serious question now, may I ask your reasoning as to why you think an individual appeal in but one jurisdiction would be beneficial to the membership? Do you think, or even know, that if the appeal is successful that it will automatically pave the way for the same retirement age to be subsequently incorporated in the contract for crew based in HK? how about those in Aus, NZ and N.America? I fully admit I know very little about contract law in most of those places, but I would be pleasantly surprised if the company were to just agree and say "OK, 65 is in over in pommieland, so the rest of you can now have the same NRA wherever you are based, and you may also retain your pay scales". Yeah right!!
Additionally may I also ask you why you think this appeal is a better way forward, rather than the AOA just nutting it out with the company once and for all, to negotiate a change to NRA for all crew in all bases?
Brgds.
Any of us who joined with 55 in the contract, always knew that despite the lengthy ongoing talks about extending the NRA, the snails pace of the progress showed to all that it was a situation that was unlikely to be resolved quickly, and that in all probability, we would have to leave unless one was cherry picked from C&T to stay on the pax fleet, or become a trashie on reduced CoS. Personally, I've still got a couple of years to go, but I do not wish to wake up like your friend and go 'Holy cr@p I'm almost 55 what am I gonna do now?', so have been making plans for a while now, as my post 55 plan does not include cx, still will be working, but mainly beer, fishing and golf.
To Raven again, a serious question now, may I ask your reasoning as to why you think an individual appeal in but one jurisdiction would be beneficial to the membership? Do you think, or even know, that if the appeal is successful that it will automatically pave the way for the same retirement age to be subsequently incorporated in the contract for crew based in HK? how about those in Aus, NZ and N.America? I fully admit I know very little about contract law in most of those places, but I would be pleasantly surprised if the company were to just agree and say "OK, 65 is in over in pommieland, so the rest of you can now have the same NRA wherever you are based, and you may also retain your pay scales". Yeah right!!
Additionally may I also ask you why you think this appeal is a better way forward, rather than the AOA just nutting it out with the company once and for all, to negotiate a change to NRA for all crew in all bases?
Brgds.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SO The new joiners FO and SO don't get BPP until extensions over 65 and the FO BPP is all going to folks who are content to stay in their non HKG base and get paid for a job they do not want to do, without moving like the rest of us did for years............so why are we so emotional about BPP and RA 65????
Maybe some higher payscales in the later FO ranks for ALL FO's might be a better deal in exchange for a unified retirement age???
Maybe some higher payscales in the later FO ranks for ALL FO's might be a better deal in exchange for a unified retirement age???
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Mephisto
Excellent post. I'll try to sum up my position.
First off, I think it's worth repeating that I fully support a balanced agreement with Cathay that recognizes the legal position and rights of both the junior and senior pilots. The junior pilots deserve BPP.
So call me sensitive, but I chafe when I read the angry, and yes contemptuous, language used by junior crew to insult and subordinate the concerns of senior crew to their more "just" cause.
You're right about needing to prepare for age 55. I marvel at how quickly it is approaching, especially as I remember the early days, when all the senior pilots warned us of how quickly the time will fly by (warning to younger readers...take heed!).
In defense of not being prepared, I can only offer up the degradation of pay and conditions over the years, coupled with living in a high tax jurisdiction for 10 years on a base, along with current financial conditions, tempering the hopes of me and most people nearing the magic 55. I also offer the number of conversations I've had with those who've returned to Cathay, post 55, with real life experience, who admittedly "failed" retirement for any number of reasons. Quite honestly, I think these reasons reinforce my feeling that 55 is a ridiculously young age to retire. Accordingly, I feel justified stating that this issue benefits all members, young and old.
I think the above reasons may be why every western jurisdiction recognizes this as a human rights issue, and not just a "contract" issue.
Whether winning the appeal in the UK will have an impact on other jurisdictions...I can only hope that a win in the UK will/can be used as precedence in other jurisdictions. Not being a lawyer I can't speak definitively, but a win would not hurt. Just as the initial loss was immediately used by Cathay to put all their plans regarding post 55 on hold. A win should have the opposite effect.
I completely agree with your comment regarding "the AOA just nutting it out with the company once and for all, to negotiate a change to NRA for all crew in all bases?" Hallelujah for that! How many years has it taken so far? Will we still be talking about this five, or 10 years from now?
What I don't agree with is a vote to mandate the AOA to ignore the concerns of senior pilots because the majority of the Association is now comprised of angry junior pilots, who argue that this will take away from their "piece of the pie". Such a vote would be a perversion of both Union ethos and democracy. After all these years, after all we've been through, it would be a show stopper for me!
The Union needs to educate newer members of the Association on the past history of our industrial relations with Cathay. I think we've been beat up quite effectively. And to have that characterized or spun, on so many pprune posts, into some form of special, privileged, treatment galls me.
That sums it up for me Mephisto. I hope I've been semi-coherent.
Thanks for asking, and Cheers! Raven
Excellent post. I'll try to sum up my position.
First off, I think it's worth repeating that I fully support a balanced agreement with Cathay that recognizes the legal position and rights of both the junior and senior pilots. The junior pilots deserve BPP.
So call me sensitive, but I chafe when I read the angry, and yes contemptuous, language used by junior crew to insult and subordinate the concerns of senior crew to their more "just" cause.
You're right about needing to prepare for age 55. I marvel at how quickly it is approaching, especially as I remember the early days, when all the senior pilots warned us of how quickly the time will fly by (warning to younger readers...take heed!).
In defense of not being prepared, I can only offer up the degradation of pay and conditions over the years, coupled with living in a high tax jurisdiction for 10 years on a base, along with current financial conditions, tempering the hopes of me and most people nearing the magic 55. I also offer the number of conversations I've had with those who've returned to Cathay, post 55, with real life experience, who admittedly "failed" retirement for any number of reasons. Quite honestly, I think these reasons reinforce my feeling that 55 is a ridiculously young age to retire. Accordingly, I feel justified stating that this issue benefits all members, young and old.
I think the above reasons may be why every western jurisdiction recognizes this as a human rights issue, and not just a "contract" issue.
Whether winning the appeal in the UK will have an impact on other jurisdictions...I can only hope that a win in the UK will/can be used as precedence in other jurisdictions. Not being a lawyer I can't speak definitively, but a win would not hurt. Just as the initial loss was immediately used by Cathay to put all their plans regarding post 55 on hold. A win should have the opposite effect.
I completely agree with your comment regarding "the AOA just nutting it out with the company once and for all, to negotiate a change to NRA for all crew in all bases?" Hallelujah for that! How many years has it taken so far? Will we still be talking about this five, or 10 years from now?
What I don't agree with is a vote to mandate the AOA to ignore the concerns of senior pilots because the majority of the Association is now comprised of angry junior pilots, who argue that this will take away from their "piece of the pie". Such a vote would be a perversion of both Union ethos and democracy. After all these years, after all we've been through, it would be a show stopper for me!
The Union needs to educate newer members of the Association on the past history of our industrial relations with Cathay. I think we've been beat up quite effectively. And to have that characterized or spun, on so many pprune posts, into some form of special, privileged, treatment galls me.
That sums it up for me Mephisto. I hope I've been semi-coherent.
Thanks for asking, and Cheers! Raven
Last edited by raven11; 29th Dec 2008 at 13:19.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my 5 cents worth....
Our contract states 55 is the NRA for all those that joined prior to 1/1/08. So far the company is meeting its contractual requirement by offering employment until 55th birthday!
Currently the company offers employment past its contractual requirements, ie from 55 onwards, to all officers but on degraded terms and conditions when compared with pre 55 employment.
BPP for extendees will be paid to someone - there is no need to obfuscate the issue by arguing over who gets it. Does it really have any relevance to the RA65 issue whether a based FO or HKG based FO gets it? Its being paid to someone is all that is important!
Who gets BPP is not under the control of the AOA so it is not something we could vote on. Paying BPP is contractual - interpretation of who is the recipient is something that has been under the company's remit for a long time. Who gets BPP is not the 'roadblock' to solving the RA65 issue.
BPP is intended to compensate junior officers for career degradation as a result of the extension of pilots beyond the NRA. Everyone that joined before 1/1/08 expected and knew NRA to be 55 and so should be accordingly compensated by any change to NRA of 55.
Is it morally correct to place the financial burden of the older generation onto the younger generation? Is it morally correct for the younger generation to act without compassion and regard for the circumstances of the older generation? Not every extendee owns a ferrari! It is easier for a new employee to change jobs/airlines/careers than an older employee so is the burden of change best placed on the old or the young?
Those who have already achieved 4bars have everything to gain and little to lose over RA65. Those who have 1-3 stripes have far more to lose and far less to gain, in the next 1-2decades, from RA65.
Working from 55 to 65 is a win like being able to work 168hrs a month for double pay is a win - it depends on your perspective.
If the CAD annual hours limit increased from 900 to 1,000 would we insist that no current captain is rostered over 900 due to the career degradation it would have on junior ranks?
The GC made a decision considering all the stakeholders. If the membership wish to question that decision then there is process in place to allow it. It is testemant to our democracy that any controversial decision can be contested!
A difficult issue - I am glad that at the GC and membership level it is decided democratically by the majority!
Our contract states 55 is the NRA for all those that joined prior to 1/1/08. So far the company is meeting its contractual requirement by offering employment until 55th birthday!
Currently the company offers employment past its contractual requirements, ie from 55 onwards, to all officers but on degraded terms and conditions when compared with pre 55 employment.
BPP for extendees will be paid to someone - there is no need to obfuscate the issue by arguing over who gets it. Does it really have any relevance to the RA65 issue whether a based FO or HKG based FO gets it? Its being paid to someone is all that is important!
Who gets BPP is not under the control of the AOA so it is not something we could vote on. Paying BPP is contractual - interpretation of who is the recipient is something that has been under the company's remit for a long time. Who gets BPP is not the 'roadblock' to solving the RA65 issue.
BPP is intended to compensate junior officers for career degradation as a result of the extension of pilots beyond the NRA. Everyone that joined before 1/1/08 expected and knew NRA to be 55 and so should be accordingly compensated by any change to NRA of 55.
Is it morally correct to place the financial burden of the older generation onto the younger generation? Is it morally correct for the younger generation to act without compassion and regard for the circumstances of the older generation? Not every extendee owns a ferrari! It is easier for a new employee to change jobs/airlines/careers than an older employee so is the burden of change best placed on the old or the young?
Those who have already achieved 4bars have everything to gain and little to lose over RA65. Those who have 1-3 stripes have far more to lose and far less to gain, in the next 1-2decades, from RA65.
Working from 55 to 65 is a win like being able to work 168hrs a month for double pay is a win - it depends on your perspective.
If the CAD annual hours limit increased from 900 to 1,000 would we insist that no current captain is rostered over 900 due to the career degradation it would have on junior ranks?
The GC made a decision considering all the stakeholders. If the membership wish to question that decision then there is process in place to allow it. It is testemant to our democracy that any controversial decision can be contested!
A difficult issue - I am glad that at the GC and membership level it is decided democratically by the majority!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have asked the AOA to consider negotiating with the company to increase the time available I have to pay a mortgage, from 15 to 25 years. Was told we can't do that as it disadvantages the senior members who never got it.
Really, I doubt that the current GC would turn that down as part of a negotiating package for a new RA. I would love to see the email. Feel free to PM me it.
IFP
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stillalbatross
You still did not answer the question, which was "how long" to a Command in your home carrier? Please spare us the urban legends of a failed line check because he did not have a cap!!
Perhaps the attitude of those in the other carriers helped them pass, combined with a bit more time in?
Where does it say in our COS that it is based on 3-8 years to Command?
Where does it say in our COS that Cathay will purchase you a house for free?
Earth calling stillalbatross I think you need to join the real world. Perhaps that is why the "management" do not want to pay BPP, some are already receiving it, in the benefit of a company paid for house.
You still did not answer the question, which was "how long" to a Command in your home carrier? Please spare us the urban legends of a failed line check because he did not have a cap!!
Perhaps the attitude of those in the other carriers helped them pass, combined with a bit more time in?Where does it say in our COS that it is based on 3-8 years to Command?
Where does it say in our COS that Cathay will purchase you a house for free?
Earth calling stillalbatross I think you need to join the real world. Perhaps that is why the "management" do not want to pay BPP, some are already receiving it, in the benefit of a company paid for house.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: hk
Age: 67
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the GC do their work
We all voted for the individuals on the GC who represent us. If they deem it fit to support an AOA member in his fight ... so be it. I am sure they have sat around a table and thought it through first. So voting on EVERYTHING they decide to do is stupid and a waste of their time. When a government decide to build a stadium they dont ask the country to vote on it...they just get on with it. I suggest we let the AOA committee get on with their work and let them fight the good fight for all ( and any ) AOA members. As far as I am concerned if the committee see fit to spend our money on helping ANY member with his problems, then go ahead. For any group in the AOA to try and dictate what the GC should do or not do is not the way forward. Let the GC get on with it with our support and if we dont like it then vote them out in a few years.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So voting on EVERYTHING they decide to do is stupid and a waste of their time. When a government decide to build a stadium they dont ask the country to vote on it...they just get on with it.
I suggest we let the AOA committee get on with their work and let them fight the good fight for all ( and any ) AOA members. As far as I am concerned if the committee see fit to spend our money on helping ANY member with his problems, then go ahead.
For any group in the AOA to try and dictate what the GC should do or not do is not the way forward. Let the GC get on with it with our support and if we dont like it then vote them out in a few years.
Regardless of what the reason is, what the AOA has decided to do has just put them 3 steps back after taking 1 step forward in the past few months. It makes this leadership no different than the previous. Remember the overturned vote on RPs? same ****t, different smell.
I don't care what the issue is, wether it is extending or by-pass pay, it was an aoutocratic way to go about it, that is all. Actions speak louder than words, and the AOA's actions have muted all the blaring they've recently done. I would love to see the youtube video on this one.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...all the 'cat fighting' aside, the most obvious point that needs emphasising is simply this: we are almost the only airline who is not even age 60, never mind the new norm of 65. Regardless of all the contretemps, we will go to 65 because that is the industry standard. Get over it. The AOA and the company need to find a reasonable compromise, then implement it.
This whole debate is being driven by a bunch of lazy self interested cowards who snivel away on their bases whilst refusing to come to HKG to undergo the ultimate examination of the Command course. Stay where you are by all means but why the hell should you be on my pay scale without shouldering the bloody responsibility??
If you are given a course date and refuse there should be a 'cooling off' period after which you either front up for the course or stay where you are on FO salary. Your choice.
Come on AOA - sort that out and this problem is solved. Don't put it to a vote because all the cowards would vote against it - obviously.
BPP should not be a freebee for those who can't be bothered or who are simply incompetent. It's for those who are genuinely disadvantaged by CX actions (like DEFO/DE Capt/extensions etc)
If you are given a course date and refuse there should be a 'cooling off' period after which you either front up for the course or stay where you are on FO salary. Your choice.
Come on AOA - sort that out and this problem is solved. Don't put it to a vote because all the cowards would vote against it - obviously.
BPP should not be a freebee for those who can't be bothered or who are simply incompetent. It's for those who are genuinely disadvantaged by CX actions (like DEFO/DE Capt/extensions etc)
