AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because he is raising a court case on an issue that is outside the scope of his contract. If this was in regards to something the company was doing contrary to what is written in his contract, then so be it. I think that is what the union is doing with regard to SO BPP, FO BPP, etc. But to me, this is the same as the union bankrolling my court case against McDon's because I don't agree with the price of a Big Mac. If he wants to sue to work to 65, then let him do it out of his own pocket, not mine.
box
box
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nez Zealand
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS
The problem with your point is that you assume, like many others, that the officer in question WANTS to work past the age of 55.
SO here's what your proposing if I'm not mistaken.
I will need to work an extra "however-many" years to offset the money I lose in delayed command.
Why would anyone want that?
Please don't mistake my argument. I realise that 55 creeps up on all of us faster than most of us would like and I also agree that 55 is a young age to retire.
But do you not see that it only benefits the guys approaching 55? There is 0 benefit to the guy with the delayed command.
The problem with your point is that you assume, like many others, that the officer in question WANTS to work past the age of 55.
SO here's what your proposing if I'm not mistaken.
I will need to work an extra "however-many" years to offset the money I lose in delayed command.
Why would anyone want that?
Please don't mistake my argument. I realise that 55 creeps up on all of us faster than most of us would like and I also agree that 55 is a young age to retire.
But do you not see that it only benefits the guys approaching 55? There is 0 benefit to the guy with the delayed command.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRATRICIDE
Wow. Go to work for a couple of days, return home, log on to Pprune, and discover how low some people can sink. As a long time member of the AOA, it is beyond my comprehension that some members can actually consider signing their name to such a shameful petition.
Those who are should ask themselves what your parents, or your children, would think of you even considering such a thing. When faced with a test of your integrity, you decide that there is no immorality in self-interest. Forming a mob, is OK with you. What depth of anger must you feel to turn on your colleagues?
Who can rationalize committing such a contemptuous act? I still can’t rap my head around this. Let me see if I have this straight. The majority of the younger members of the AOA, who joined Cathay in the past several years, feel they can form a mob to push through an immoral agenda. To sign a petition to try and bully the AOA to seek, not a balanced deal that benefits everyone, but instead, a deal that favours only one segment. Their segment.
I actually feel sick to my stomach.
Go ahead boys and girls. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Have this vote, and see what Union remains afterward. It won’t be me quitting, it will you driving a stake through my heart!
Number Cruncher. Nice try at candy-coating this. I see it for what it is: Kane and Abel….Fratricide.
Wow. Go to work for a couple of days, return home, log on to Pprune, and discover how low some people can sink. As a long time member of the AOA, it is beyond my comprehension that some members can actually consider signing their name to such a shameful petition.
Those who are should ask themselves what your parents, or your children, would think of you even considering such a thing. When faced with a test of your integrity, you decide that there is no immorality in self-interest. Forming a mob, is OK with you. What depth of anger must you feel to turn on your colleagues?
Who can rationalize committing such a contemptuous act? I still can’t rap my head around this. Let me see if I have this straight. The majority of the younger members of the AOA, who joined Cathay in the past several years, feel they can form a mob to push through an immoral agenda. To sign a petition to try and bully the AOA to seek, not a balanced deal that benefits everyone, but instead, a deal that favours only one segment. Their segment.
I actually feel sick to my stomach.
Go ahead boys and girls. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Have this vote, and see what Union remains afterward. It won’t be me quitting, it will you driving a stake through my heart!
Number Cruncher. Nice try at candy-coating this. I see it for what it is: Kane and Abel….Fratricide.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nez Zealand
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven - At the moment the AOA is backing one segment only - YOUR SEGMENT, if you are pro 65 and pro the AOA's funding of this case.
Please don't tell me whats good for ALL. Only I as an individual member can decide whats good for me.
This issue is about the funding of a case outside the bounds of our contracts...
Cheers
Please don't tell me whats good for ALL. Only I as an individual member can decide whats good for me.
This issue is about the funding of a case outside the bounds of our contracts...
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Convince me then
Raven, with all due respect, that was a bit melodramatic!! (By the way if you're going to accuse junior officers of fratricide, I think it's Cain 
).
On a more serious note, I think an acrimonious approach will not help the aircrew body any: it will divide us further and let management get exactly what they want at our expense (as usual).
As a four-odd-year old member of the CX family (recently upgraded to pax F/O), even if I'm only in my thirties I can sympathise with captains who feel 55 has "snuck up" on them, or who have seen their finances take a horrible hit in the last year before retirement, due to the current crisis or personal circumstances. You're making good money, you're at the culminating point in your career, and you are (rightly) respected. I also appreciate that although I currently very much want to retire at 55, I may not be able to or may change my mind when I get there.
However (and notwithstanding all spin to the contrary), there is no escaping the fact that going from 55 to 65 overnight will really only be a huge advantage to those who are already EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO BE in their career, namely, pax captains, usually on a base. The further you move down the career ladder the more disadvantageous it becomes.
Even a pax captain in HK waiting for a base will find these are suddenly full for the next "X" years. A freighter captain waiting to transfer to the pax fleet will also find he is stuck on freight for much longer than anticipated. There is no telling how much longer pax F/Os will have to wait for a command if age 65 goes through, and let's not even start on what this will do to a freighter F/O's or an S/O's career prospects!
I feel that a fair compromise is feasible provided cooler thinking prevails. One where all captains are offered a later retirement age on good terms but which also offers some compensation to junior crew, perhaps involving more pay points accompanied by a solid raise at the higher pay points (to cover those years where one would have reasonably expected an upgrade), perhaps some benefits such as business class FOCs and first class duty travel after "X" years in CX or something.
What many junior crew fear is that if the case is won, CX will use it as an excuse to scrap bypass pay altogether. It also surrenders one of our few bargaining chips as was rightly pointed out.
What I want to hear from the AOA is what they are planning and why our fears are not justified. I may be sitting on the fence on this one, but vague promises of "proposals in the pipeline" are not enough to convince many F/Os I have been talking with to abstain from voting against something which in the first instance is patently damaging to their careers!
).On a more serious note, I think an acrimonious approach will not help the aircrew body any: it will divide us further and let management get exactly what they want at our expense (as usual).
As a four-odd-year old member of the CX family (recently upgraded to pax F/O), even if I'm only in my thirties I can sympathise with captains who feel 55 has "snuck up" on them, or who have seen their finances take a horrible hit in the last year before retirement, due to the current crisis or personal circumstances. You're making good money, you're at the culminating point in your career, and you are (rightly) respected. I also appreciate that although I currently very much want to retire at 55, I may not be able to or may change my mind when I get there.
However (and notwithstanding all spin to the contrary), there is no escaping the fact that going from 55 to 65 overnight will really only be a huge advantage to those who are already EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO BE in their career, namely, pax captains, usually on a base. The further you move down the career ladder the more disadvantageous it becomes.
Even a pax captain in HK waiting for a base will find these are suddenly full for the next "X" years. A freighter captain waiting to transfer to the pax fleet will also find he is stuck on freight for much longer than anticipated. There is no telling how much longer pax F/Os will have to wait for a command if age 65 goes through, and let's not even start on what this will do to a freighter F/O's or an S/O's career prospects!
I feel that a fair compromise is feasible provided cooler thinking prevails. One where all captains are offered a later retirement age on good terms but which also offers some compensation to junior crew, perhaps involving more pay points accompanied by a solid raise at the higher pay points (to cover those years where one would have reasonably expected an upgrade), perhaps some benefits such as business class FOCs and first class duty travel after "X" years in CX or something.
What many junior crew fear is that if the case is won, CX will use it as an excuse to scrap bypass pay altogether. It also surrenders one of our few bargaining chips as was rightly pointed out.
What I want to hear from the AOA is what they are planning and why our fears are not justified. I may be sitting on the fence on this one, but vague promises of "proposals in the pipeline" are not enough to convince many F/Os I have been talking with to abstain from voting against something which in the first instance is patently damaging to their careers!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of emotion here on both sides so lets go back to the basics.
What is actually written in the COS.
Clause 36: The normal retirement age is 55.
Clause 10: In the case of retention of Captains beyond the Retirement Age, the next most senior FO will receive Command BPP.
Take careful note that Clause 10 does not mention directly the words "Age 55". The only words written are Retirement Age.
So CX simple changes Clause 36 to read RA65 and guess what.. No Command BPP will be payed until a Captain extends past RA65.
How is this fair deal for FO's & SO's?
What is actually written in the COS.
Clause 36: The normal retirement age is 55.
Clause 10: In the case of retention of Captains beyond the Retirement Age, the next most senior FO will receive Command BPP.
Take careful note that Clause 10 does not mention directly the words "Age 55". The only words written are Retirement Age.
So CX simple changes Clause 36 to read RA65 and guess what.. No Command BPP will be payed until a Captain extends past RA65.
How is this fair deal for FO's & SO's?
Last edited by Harbour Dweller; 11th Jan 2009 at 11:24.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack / Box etc
If the retirement age changes guess what if you still want to retire at 55 then there is nothing stopping you. Those of us that want to work longer will not force you, nor will the company.
To give us a bit more of an understanding how long have you been in the company and how long have you been a member of the AOA. The same should be asked of the person putting forward the motion, how much have you all put into the association.
With all this talk of democracy and that everything needs to be voted on by the membership then there is no point in having a GC.
As for the "it's not fair the bases are full" well that has been the case for many years and it is a case of seniority. Of course the bases can now be filled by your compatriots and with bypass pay!
If the retirement age changes guess what if you still want to retire at 55 then there is nothing stopping you. Those of us that want to work longer will not force you, nor will the company.
To give us a bit more of an understanding how long have you been in the company and how long have you been a member of the AOA. The same should be asked of the person putting forward the motion, how much have you all put into the association.
With all this talk of democracy and that everything needs to be voted on by the membership then there is no point in having a GC.
As for the "it's not fair the bases are full" well that has been the case for many years and it is a case of seniority. Of course the bases can now be filled by your compatriots and with bypass pay!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman and others,
Respectfully. If the age 65 is unilaterally imposed, which is likely if the outcome of the court case in the UK goes the way of the plaintiff, then it will make it MUCH harder for me to retire at 55. What about that can't you comprehend? You worked here for how many years, never lifting a finger to change the retirement age, even though most everywhere in the world observed an age 60 retirement. Now that you are presumably on your way out, you want to ride the gravy train for a few more years, to the serious detriment of the junior crew. Yet your band of merry fellows is saying we are the ones pushing a division in the union. It looks to me like we are simply trying to protect what we have now in the face of your opposition. I don't want this to be something that divides our union. I have been a member of ALPA for quite some time, and I understand the importance of a strong union. Just don't expect me and my junior colleagues to stand idly by and not protect our OWN careers. I truly hope that we can work something out that will benefit all, but as optimistic as I am, the past evidence and current climate don't inspire much confidence.
box
Respectfully. If the age 65 is unilaterally imposed, which is likely if the outcome of the court case in the UK goes the way of the plaintiff, then it will make it MUCH harder for me to retire at 55. What about that can't you comprehend? You worked here for how many years, never lifting a finger to change the retirement age, even though most everywhere in the world observed an age 60 retirement. Now that you are presumably on your way out, you want to ride the gravy train for a few more years, to the serious detriment of the junior crew. Yet your band of merry fellows is saying we are the ones pushing a division in the union. It looks to me like we are simply trying to protect what we have now in the face of your opposition. I don't want this to be something that divides our union. I have been a member of ALPA for quite some time, and I understand the importance of a strong union. Just don't expect me and my junior colleagues to stand idly by and not protect our OWN careers. I truly hope that we can work something out that will benefit all, but as optimistic as I am, the past evidence and current climate don't inspire much confidence.
box
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS,
to answer your question, based on past growth figures, with full receipt of BPP a junior guy only works for one year for free, with no BPP about three years for free - ie it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings of what would have been earnt by 55(with RA55) in NPV terms. Of course if this current tsunami ripples on for more than 12 months I will have to revise those figures(longer!)
to answer your question, based on past growth figures, with full receipt of BPP a junior guy only works for one year for free, with no BPP about three years for free - ie it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings of what would have been earnt by 55(with RA55) in NPV terms. Of course if this current tsunami ripples on for more than 12 months I will have to revise those figures(longer!)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Box
Fine you have been a member of ALPA for a few years, not the AOA. What is it that you do not understand that some of us want to work past 55 but yet your apparent selfishness of wanting to retire at 55 forces me to go at an age I do not want to retire at. Plus why should I take up contract work to help you? How do you know we have not been trying to increase the retirment age. If you joined in the US then you will be happy to know that USAB were on a higher payscale than B scale in HK, so which gravy train are we talking about?
Fine you have been a member of ALPA for a few years, not the AOA. What is it that you do not understand that some of us want to work past 55 but yet your apparent selfishness of wanting to retire at 55 forces me to go at an age I do not want to retire at. Plus why should I take up contract work to help you? How do you know we have not been trying to increase the retirment age. If you joined in the US then you will be happy to know that USAB were on a higher payscale than B scale in HK, so which gravy train are we talking about?
NC..........with no BPP it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings.
THEREFORE from for every year beyond that they are earning cream? extra money they wouldn't have gotten if they'd retired at 55?
so possibly up to 9 years extra at captain pay ( assuming they stayed until 65 )
Correct?
THEREFORE from for every year beyond that they are earning cream? extra money they wouldn't have gotten if they'd retired at 55?
so possibly up to 9 years extra at captain pay ( assuming they stayed until 65 )
Correct?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: England
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If RA65 is eventually put to a vote then the longer this takes then possibly the less likely it is to pass. The number of pilots on COS 08 is slowly increasing. Why would they vote in favour of it?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAVEN 11 AND Joe Shmoe....well said. I would like to take to task the culprit motion. Blue = motion Green = Cyril
Dear Members of the HKAOA,
As you may be aware, the General Committee of the HKAOA has agreed to fund the legal costs of Captain MacIlroy in his appeal to the UK Employment Tribunal to have the retirement age increased for Cathay Pacific Pilots to 65 Years of age. Yes and the GC debated it long and hard, you and the those that support your motion obviously have No Confidence in the decision nor the GC.
Whilst I believe Captain MacIlroy is entitled to his day in court, I strongly oppose the HKAOA funding an action which is; He is entitled to the basic principal of equal opportunity and not to be age discriminated against, a fact publicly recognised by our representatives. It is an absolute disgrace that a few fellow union members seek to take away this fundamental benefit or right. Probably the second lowest act a pilot can do to his fellow pilot.
1/ In contravention to the very Conditions of Service that the AOA should seek to protect. The conditions of service that were signed some 2 decades ago have not kept pace with Age discrimination,and Sexual Discrimination laws just to name two. A few years back CX did not employ any female cockpit crew, times caught up with them and they did the morally correct thing. Many things with respect to racial and other types of discrimination have evolved in both a legal and moral sense since. You could actually smoke in the flight deck to when we joined but times changed! The COS cannot override the law and that is the crux of the appeal.
2/ Has the potential to adversely affect the career progression, earnings and basing opportunities of the vast majority of AOA members and Cathay Pacific pilots in general. That is a sweeping and untrue statement. A few posts back there was some pretty convincing numbers that career earnings are potentially significantly greater. I will expand on BPP in a later post however in General BPP will be potentially paid for life to the vast majority of those deemed unsuitable for command and genuine bypassed crew will not see a cent anyhow. Those in HKG may not see any BPP
Whilst any legal victory for Captain MacIlroy would initially only impact those pilots based in the UK the immediate effect would be ;
1/ Bypass pay for UK based First Officers would not be payable unless a captain is retained beyond 65 years of age. (currently 55 years) Maybe maybe not it is still in your COS
2/ The possibility that those UK based pilots working beyond 55 years would not generate bypass pay for pilots in Hong Kong and the other bases as it would be very unlikely that a court would inflict the financial burden of both RA65 and bypass pay on the company. Wake up it is pretty much going to those on a base with not intention of doing a command.
3/ Basing opportunities would reduce significantly due to older pilots remaining on the base due to RA 65.
Furthermore, should Captain MacIlroy succeed in his appeal, the legal precedence would certainly be used in other jurisdictions resulting in similar degradations to your Conditions of Service. Not being discriminated based on age is hardly a degradation to my COS.The moral obligation would be intense not to age discriminate, welcome news in this modern new world.
I am therefore calling for an online EGM to be held to vote on the following motion:
"Be it resolved that the membership of the HKAOA hereby authorises the funding of legal fees for Captain MacIlroy in his appeal to the UK Employment Tribunal."
The rules of the HKAOA require that the motion be worded in the "positive". I would therefore strongly recommend that you vote AGAINST the motion in order to protect you COS.
I would recommend that those that support this disgraceful divisive and selfishly motivated motion and whom add their name to the list of shame have a good hard think about it. It is simply a fact the case will proceed with or without the AOA funding and all of the above is likely in any event. It is the trail of destruction you create in the interim that is of greater concern. Do the honourable thing and withdraw it at the very least until you have seen the AOA proposal to sort the mess out.
Dear Members of the HKAOA,
As you may be aware, the General Committee of the HKAOA has agreed to fund the legal costs of Captain MacIlroy in his appeal to the UK Employment Tribunal to have the retirement age increased for Cathay Pacific Pilots to 65 Years of age. Yes and the GC debated it long and hard, you and the those that support your motion obviously have No Confidence in the decision nor the GC.
Whilst I believe Captain MacIlroy is entitled to his day in court, I strongly oppose the HKAOA funding an action which is; He is entitled to the basic principal of equal opportunity and not to be age discriminated against, a fact publicly recognised by our representatives. It is an absolute disgrace that a few fellow union members seek to take away this fundamental benefit or right. Probably the second lowest act a pilot can do to his fellow pilot.
1/ In contravention to the very Conditions of Service that the AOA should seek to protect. The conditions of service that were signed some 2 decades ago have not kept pace with Age discrimination,and Sexual Discrimination laws just to name two. A few years back CX did not employ any female cockpit crew, times caught up with them and they did the morally correct thing. Many things with respect to racial and other types of discrimination have evolved in both a legal and moral sense since. You could actually smoke in the flight deck to when we joined but times changed! The COS cannot override the law and that is the crux of the appeal.
2/ Has the potential to adversely affect the career progression, earnings and basing opportunities of the vast majority of AOA members and Cathay Pacific pilots in general. That is a sweeping and untrue statement. A few posts back there was some pretty convincing numbers that career earnings are potentially significantly greater. I will expand on BPP in a later post however in General BPP will be potentially paid for life to the vast majority of those deemed unsuitable for command and genuine bypassed crew will not see a cent anyhow. Those in HKG may not see any BPP
Whilst any legal victory for Captain MacIlroy would initially only impact those pilots based in the UK the immediate effect would be ;
1/ Bypass pay for UK based First Officers would not be payable unless a captain is retained beyond 65 years of age. (currently 55 years) Maybe maybe not it is still in your COS
2/ The possibility that those UK based pilots working beyond 55 years would not generate bypass pay for pilots in Hong Kong and the other bases as it would be very unlikely that a court would inflict the financial burden of both RA65 and bypass pay on the company. Wake up it is pretty much going to those on a base with not intention of doing a command.
3/ Basing opportunities would reduce significantly due to older pilots remaining on the base due to RA 65.
Furthermore, should Captain MacIlroy succeed in his appeal, the legal precedence would certainly be used in other jurisdictions resulting in similar degradations to your Conditions of Service. Not being discriminated based on age is hardly a degradation to my COS.The moral obligation would be intense not to age discriminate, welcome news in this modern new world.
I am therefore calling for an online EGM to be held to vote on the following motion:
"Be it resolved that the membership of the HKAOA hereby authorises the funding of legal fees for Captain MacIlroy in his appeal to the UK Employment Tribunal."
The rules of the HKAOA require that the motion be worded in the "positive". I would therefore strongly recommend that you vote AGAINST the motion in order to protect you COS.
I would recommend that those that support this disgraceful divisive and selfishly motivated motion and whom add their name to the list of shame have a good hard think about it. It is simply a fact the case will proceed with or without the AOA funding and all of the above is likely in any event. It is the trail of destruction you create in the interim that is of greater concern. Do the honourable thing and withdraw it at the very least until you have seen the AOA proposal to sort the mess out.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypocrits
I have to laugh at all the posters who bleet on about how dishonourable this whole motion is, etc, etc.
What happened to honouring a contract? We all entered a contract that we should honour. Be it A scale, B scale, Cos 08 or any of the 27 or so contracts out there - you signed it because you were happy with it.
Now honour it.
What isn't getting much of a mention is that you can still work at CX beyond 55. It might not suit you to relocate to Hong Kong or fly a freighter on a lower salary but you have the option.
I'm not against RA65, as long as those crews getting the short end of the wedge are compensated.
What happened to honouring a contract? We all entered a contract that we should honour. Be it A scale, B scale, Cos 08 or any of the 27 or so contracts out there - you signed it because you were happy with it.
Now honour it.
What isn't getting much of a mention is that you can still work at CX beyond 55. It might not suit you to relocate to Hong Kong or fly a freighter on a lower salary but you have the option.
I'm not against RA65, as long as those crews getting the short end of the wedge are compensated.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone seems to think that the case will be heard whether it is funded by the union or not.
My question therefore is who will pay for the legal proceedings if the AOA don't?
My question therefore is who will pay for the legal proceedings if the AOA don't?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypocrisy?
Cyril
Was the original court case sanctioned (but not funded) by the AOA - I don't remember seeing mention made of it?
When will the appeal be heard? I hope the GC has sufficient time to put their "fair deal for all" proposal to members and the company. This will at least get the negotiation underway, and we then have the option to use the legal appeal as a lever to get what we all want.
I find it a bit rich for you to try and claim the moral high-ground over this unilateral legal approach when it appears this was NOT part of the AOA's ongoing attempt at negotiating a fair deal on RA65 for all. This was a legal challenge by an individual that lost (most likely wrongly). Now the AOA has agreed to fund the appeal, the legal case is now being championed by some as the AOA's collective solution to RA65. It wasn't and it's not - the UK legal appeal is only a small part of trying to sort out the mess that is differing retirement ages over multiple contracts and jurisdictions.
Was the original court case sanctioned (but not funded) by the AOA - I don't remember seeing mention made of it?
When will the appeal be heard? I hope the GC has sufficient time to put their "fair deal for all" proposal to members and the company. This will at least get the negotiation underway, and we then have the option to use the legal appeal as a lever to get what we all want.
I find it a bit rich for you to try and claim the moral high-ground over this unilateral legal approach when it appears this was NOT part of the AOA's ongoing attempt at negotiating a fair deal on RA65 for all. This was a legal challenge by an individual that lost (most likely wrongly). Now the AOA has agreed to fund the appeal, the legal case is now being championed by some as the AOA's collective solution to RA65. It wasn't and it's not - the UK legal appeal is only a small part of trying to sort out the mess that is differing retirement ages over multiple contracts and jurisdictions.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nez Zealand
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
List of Shame???
Disgusting!!! With that kind of attitude I'm not surprised that most gents I've talked to the last few days are extremely PRO this motion.
I wonder how many of you gents were pushing for 55 when flying the right seat. Not many I'm sure.
If you want to use that tone then be my guest. Some will simply dig their heels in even more.
You speak about whats fair for all but all you do is preach what's good for you.
I have tried to see both sides of the equation but I for one am done now.
When this motion goes to vote we will vote on the bounds of our contract. You made it impossible to do anything else!!
Out
Disgusting!!! With that kind of attitude I'm not surprised that most gents I've talked to the last few days are extremely PRO this motion.
I wonder how many of you gents were pushing for 55 when flying the right seat. Not many I'm sure.
If you want to use that tone then be my guest. Some will simply dig their heels in even more.
You speak about whats fair for all but all you do is preach what's good for you.
I have tried to see both sides of the equation but I for one am done now.
When this motion goes to vote we will vote on the bounds of our contract. You made it impossible to do anything else!!
Out