AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal

[Truckmasters]

alzheimers

I can't remember a majority of the current older generation screaming in 1995 (or earlier) that it wasn't fair that the senior pilots were retiring in accordance with their contract at age 55.

Maybe the current seniors used to have the same myopic view as the current juniors. But now that it actually applies to them........Well that's really not fair, is it?

Hmmmmm

[raven11]

Liam:

Reread my paragraph regarding political correct court rulings, and if you still feel age 55 will be upheld...well, your only wishful thinking. On the other hand, if you’re so sure the appeal will be thrown out, then you’ve got nothing to worry about funding it.

You're wrong about the judges too. Many work into their seventies. As do doctors, lawyers, and most professions....for as long as they can do the job. As far as pilots go, ICAO says 65 is OK.

Did you not read the part of my post where I acknowledged that I had changed my mind about age 55? What about the part that mentioned that so have the vast majority of my colleagues? And the part about me predicting that you will too, did you notice that?

I know what my contract said when I signed it...that was my point to fenwicksgirl. Although I was happy with my contract when I joined, so was he as a B scaler. If after the fact one realizes there was a flaw in their employment contract, or a clause or two that could stand improvement, then one hopes to negotiate a change to that contract. Employment contracts aren't cast in stone. That's what we're all debating here isn't it? Improving our employment contract. Or are you suggesting we should never negotiate any change to our contract? Doesn't everyone feel they should be entitled to a pay raise every decade or so? Or are we bound to our original contract?

I am at a loss to understand your point about second officer BPP. I know I'm having a hard time getting over myself, but what are you suggesting? I thought I stated several times that I agreed with BPP, for those who deserve it. What are you trying to insinuate?

You didn't question my points regarding "majority rules". Should we in Hong Kong vote ourselves a pay raise?

Once again I repeat, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.

[Loopdeloop]

Raven. What Liam is alluding to is that if you introduce a way of the company deciding who deserves BPP, we'll end up with a similar situation to that which the S/O's are experiencing now. He's right, and the only way to continue with the BPP issue is to follow the CoS to the letter - as soon as we accept a company translation of this, we'll be in a whole heap of trouble.

Also, let not your blood boil over the F/O on more pay than had he passed his command. He's probably not on bypass pay, just enjoying a pax European base and the command he was attempting was a freighter base in the UK or Hkg.

[Liam Gallagher]

Raven11

"You're wrong about the judges too. Many work into their seventies.."

Really.... the following link would suggest otherwise.

Policy review after judge forced to retire wins age bias case | UK news | The Guardian

This is an interesting article as it suggests a UK Judge who was being forced to retire at 65 challenged the decision. The Home Secretary argued that retirement age 65 was necessary to ensure a flow of Judges through the system (sound familar). It seems that was an acceptable defence, however the Court ruled the Home Secretary had other means of achieving this aim. The Home Secretary lost and Judges now retire at 70.

Net sum of this.... the outcome of any Appeal is uncertain...

"On the other hand, if you’re so sure the appeal will be thrown out, then you’ve got nothing to worry about funding it"

Firstly, I have never said the Appeal will fail. I have consistently said, I don't know... My objection to the Appeal on uncertain grounds is the massive cost. Can you, or anyone else quantify the cost of a failed Appeal.

How about you, or someone else, answer some of my questions?

1. What will the Appeal cost?
2. In the orginal case, was the Human rights argument put before the Judge; if not... why not?
3. How come RA55 is a breach of Human Rights, whereas RA 65 is not?
3. If successful; what will it mean for non-UK base people?
4. If successful; what will it mean for UK based people?
5. If successful; will those who were UK based and have either been forced to retire, or have been forced to accept reduced terms, be entitled to compensation?

[Ex Douglas Driver]

The following is a couple of paragraphs taken from the 06 Jan AOA update, and specifically addresses the AOA funding of the UK appeal:

The GC has always recognised the extreme divisiveness of the issues surrounding an increase to the Normal Retirement Age. Our position has been a consistent one, that we want a fair deal on RA65 for everyone. By necessity, there must be compensation for those disadvantaged by a change to our CoS; no-one is suggesting otherwise. Equally, no-one is suggesting that we are preventing a move to RA65.

Remember, the Company has exactly what it wants at the moment; all the extendees it wants, for as long as it wants – and no longer – and at the (reduced) price it wants. Why would they want a RA65 deal?

For those who are members, take the time to read the rest of the update that is residing in your inbox.

I personally think the GC has succinctly put in two paragraphs, what has taken 5 pages of emotive, devisive tripe on here. It has been said before, and I'll say it again: This is of management's doing, not the AOA's.


disclaimer: I am not on the GC!

[raven11]

Loopdeloop

Sorry I just noticed your post.

You misread my comment regarding the F/O (Is my writing that bad?). The F/O I was referring to failed a pax Command, not a Freighter Command!

I said the following:

Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!

My point was that the co-pilot was earning more than the Captain was. You know the guy in charge of the ship!

Are you saying that you'd be OK with an S/O on your crew being paid more than you (that's assuming you're an F/O)?

[bobrun]

So many different opinions, interesting. It's funny to see how everyone's idea of what is right or wrong always seem to revolve around what is the best for them considering their current situation (whether that's intentionnal or not, who knows ). Young guys do not want RA65, but once they're older they'll defend it by saying they have grown wiser!

We could debate RA65 as long as we want; it won't change the fact that the company isn't prepared to pay the small 1% it would require to make it a fair deal to everyone. They simply don't want a deal on it right now. As far as the human rights issue is concerned, that has already been turned down for pilots in courts, and not just in the UK.

And by the way, regarding SO BPP, one important issue is that SOs who deserve it are simply not getting it. Get informed.

[Dragon69]

Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!

Raven11, are you that easily agitated or that gullible to believe anything anyone tells you? Do you know the whole circumstance before you let yourself get an ulcer? What if the F/O was much, much senior to the young captain, (you know the guy in charge of the ship), and failed his command course only because it was politically motivated. ie. some of our very senior ex flight engineers who have been held back unfairly.

[raven11]

Dragonfly

Spare me your insults. Are you that angry that you can't tone down your invective and have a civil debate. Let's not turn PPrune into some kind of facebook for adults.

So, in your example, are you suggesting it's OK for a senior ex flight engineer, who failed his command course, oh yes for political reasons (always the conspiracy), deserves to be paid more than the Captain of the ship?

Now just who's being gullible here?

Bobrun. Same to you mate, spare me your righteous anger and read my posts. It's obviously you that needs to get informed. I've said it at least a dozen times: I'm for S/O bypass pay. I'm for bypass pay, period. For those who deserve it.

I, agree with Ex Douglas Driver's last post. I think the AOA update of Jan 6th strikes a balanced stand. The same position I've been trying to articulate throughout this thread. The Union is obligated to protect and further the interests of ALL its membership. Not just the "majority" to the detriment of the minority.

[Dragon69]

Ravine11

So, in your example, are you suggesting it's OK for a senior ex flight engineer, who failed his command course, oh yes for political reasons (always the conspiracy), deserves to be paid more than the Captain of the ship?

A perfect example of just how out of touch you are when it comes to issues that doesn't affect you!

You want to have a civil debate? I suggest you go and educate yourself with matters affecting all crew, not just your self serving interests.

Oh and please step off your high horse and spare me the "I am the Captain of this ship" attitude, I thought we left that behind decades ago. It's a team work remember, but again with the tone of your posts it really doesn't surprise me.

Are you that angry that you can't tone down your invective and have a civil debate

A bit of criticism made you all huffy and puffy? Poor little boy

[Liam Gallagher]

Ex Douglas Driver

Good post and injects a bit of reality into the thread.

However, I would suggest that the company doesn't entirely have what it wants. It doesn't want to pay BPP. Hence the under-hand dealings on SO BPP and the complete non-payment of BPP for over 55s on the Freighter (despite what the COS says) and the complete lack of transparency on BPP generally.

To the other posters on the tread; sorry to interupt your play ground spat with grown-up talk.... now kiddies, who threw sand in whose face?

[Arfur Dent]

Did we really cease to recognise that one person (ie the Commander) is in charge of the ship (and therefore the 'team') decades ago Dragon69??? I don't think so.

He should always be paid more than other crew members too! That HAS been the case for decades. Should prevail now too.

[Voiceofreason]

Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue. No contract can impose something in contravention to ones individual human rights.

I don't think this is quite right, Raven - as others previous have mentioned, why is 65 not a human rights issue and 55 is? I agree, times change, and therefore the actual ages referred to must change (as all other perceptions regarding race, age, sex etc must), but I really don't think it boils down to human rights. Contractual and Equal Opportunities Law, though, yes.

I tend to see it as the ending term of the contract I'm on. Many pilots in other carriers are offered fixed term deals - one month, 5 years, it doesn't matter. When they reach the end of that contract, they need to sign a new one in order to get paid.

I see reaching my 55th birthday as the same process - if I want to carry on, I need to sign a new deal. In this light, it is effectively a very long-term (30 years odd) fixed contract. I have always expected to end this contract at 55 (unless we reach a deal that suits us), as this hasn't changed since the day I signed.

And I'm not sure the AOA update addresses the issue at all - the fact is, the funding is still proceeding, no matter if they or the company "started it". Sounds like a playground taunt now!

[Voiceofreason]

ONe other thing...

The Union is obligated to protect and further the interests of ALL its membership. Not just the "majority" to the detriment of the minority.

Didn't someone say you couldn't please all of the people all of the time...? Someone, somewhere will always lose out or be unhappy no matter what decision anyone makes.

I guess then it becomes weighing up the various losses and ensuring they are as minimal as possible.

[Dragon69]

He should always be paid more than other crew members too! That HAS been the case for decades. Should prevail now too.

Jagman in a perfect world yes that would be true, but here at Cathay it is far from perfect. You have some A scale FOs flying with B scale captains, so take a wild guess which one would be earning more. As a B scale captain will that infuriate me? Not in the very least!

Yes agreed the captain has the final word, but when someone refers to their job by using words such as "commander", "in charge of the ship", these words do nothing more than blow sunshine up your a. It needlessly elevates ones position to justify ones self importance. You are joe blo employed as a captain by Cathay Pacific, nothing more, nothing less, and when the airplane comes back down to earth after a flight, so should the captain flying it.

The above has some relevance to this thread in that once those who want to extend beyond 55, and are financially well off, grasp the fact that there is much more to life than being a Cathay captain, then perhaps the need to extend isn't that attractive.

Liam,

After 5 pages of the same grown-up argument a couple of threads that's slightly off topic is not the end of the world.

[raven11]

Dragon69

As I said in my last thread, spare me your insults, and please take that enormous chip off your shoulder. If you can't take it, don't be the first one to dish it out.

Your point about me "educating myself", well why don't you help me then. Can we debate the thrust of my point: That is, as I keep repeating, that Bypass Pay should be paid to those who deserve it, and we should all have the opportunity to work beyond 55. Can you stay focussed and stick to that...without the temper tantrum, and insults!

Educate us all by giving us your reasoned arguments as to why your colleagues, I mean teammates, approaching 55 should face unemployment to satisfy you?

Oh, and by the way, the vast majority of pilots I fly with at Cathay are among the best individuals I have ever encountered in 35 years of flying. Top blokes! The Best! I don't know any that place themselves on a "high Horse" as you so flippantly suggest. One of them is my mate, a 15-year B scale Captain, who wishes to remain flying, but instead is leaving this week.

Spare a thought for him won't you!

[Dragon69]

Spare a thought for him won't you!

Why is there no life after Cathay?? Is he being sent to the guillotine?? No thanks would rather spare a thought to the poor civilians being killed in Gaza. Keep it in perspective!

Educate us all by giving us your reasoned arguments as to why your colleagues, I mean teammates, approaching 55 should face unemployment to satisfy you?

Been a Captain for a while, just because I don't share your views about extension doesn't make me a junior crew. Regardless of whether there is a legal obligation to change to 65, I believe it is morally and ethically wrong for a 15-20 years captain to extend at the detriment to our junior crews simply because he thinks it is his god given right to extend beyond his CoS. As someone pointed out, I don't recall anyone making a fuss about retirement age 10 years ago, but now that the carrot is being dangled in front of us, all sorts of poor excuses are being drummed up to justify the cause.

You stated that as one approaches retirement then their views on extension will change. If so, in order to convince us please give an insight as to why a long serving Captain like yourself would want to extend. Is it purely financial?? lack of hobbies?? lack of family/friends?? What is the real motive behind wanting to extend, it is an honest question requiring an honest answer.

[No-Wai]

Sorry Raven, but I wouldn't spare a thought for him, and I'm a B-Scale captain with <2yrs to go to 55. I appreciate he may want to keep working for CX (and for that I understand his diappointment), but seriously, 55RA is a surprise to him? We all new what we signed on for, and (should) have been planning accordingly. Sure, peoples' circumstances change, that's why a few years out you start exploring other employment opportunities. There is no way in hell that had I been desperate to work beyond 55 that I would be expecting CX to miraculously bail me out by unilaterally imposing RA65.

Quite frankly, this "age 65 is coming" mantra is starting to smack of desperation for many. If there's one thing this industry has taught me, it's that there aint nothing certain - even if it IS coming, I wouldn't be planning on it in the near future.

[Loopdeloop]

I don't think it's a great idea for the AOA to fund the appeal as it sets a precedent that may come back to haunt them, but I voted for this committee and I'm happy they're doing a good job. They discussed the matter long and hard and I don't see any reason for a separate vote on the subject. The appeal will be heard whether the AOA pay for it or not so the only argument is over the money and it would be a shame to divide our membership further over "just the money"

Raven
1. Who decides which F/Os "deserve" to be paid BPP?
2. I disagree that the Capt needs always to be paid more than the rest of the crew - Talk to any of the guys who were young Herc/VC10/Tri* captains in the RAF and you'll find that they were frequently the lowest paid members of a 3 or 4 man crew but it had no bearing on the operation. Here at CX, we have a poorly executed seniority system, and with the demise of the FACA we have European pax F/Os flying with London based freighter captains. Usually this results in the Captain being both the more junior and lowest paid crew member (Apologies for going off topic Liam!)

[raven11]

I tip my hat to you last three gentleman (that includes you Dragon69). Three excellent posts! Well done.

You all have me thinking.....