AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it takes until 56/58th birthday to recover career earnings of what would have been earnt by 55(with RA55)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes a list of shame it is. At the end of the day the list of shame will probably mirror the list of those receiving BPP and not willing to move off the base or those HKG pilots deluding themselves that they will get BPP. The proposer of the motion is on a base in BNE, does he intend to come back to HKG or is he going try and pocket the money and not do the job.
Management are telling line crews that on one fleet alone, of the 45 receiving BPP 43 are deemed unsuitable for command. That is a system truley flawed and not looking after those actually by passed.
What I am preaching to you to let the AOA put its proposal foward, they have stated clearly they want a fair settlement.
Raven my friend, they a driving a stake in your back
Management are telling line crews that on one fleet alone, of the 45 receiving BPP 43 are deemed unsuitable for command. That is a system truley flawed and not looking after those actually by passed.
What I am preaching to you to let the AOA put its proposal foward, they have stated clearly they want a fair settlement.
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!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm... Retirement age 65, additional 10 years of long haul statistically puts one dead at 68-72. That gives a guy 3 to 7 years of life to live work free. Of course part of that will be spent in treatment trying to fight some horrible disease that's got you by the balls. Nope, age 55 is very soon for me and I'm out of here. Life is short, don't forget it!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One should not fear democracy!
A motion like the one brought forward is not a bad thing like some try to make us believe.
Those who oppose it have obviously already lost the confidence in the GC to communicate their decision to help funding the appeal to the rest of the membership.
With the right explanation and more importantly actually outlining how a fair deal for everyone might look like the motion might pass, which in return gives a solid mandate to the GC to continue their path.
btw.: I find it irritating that first we ask the younger generation to join the AOA but than tell them to shut up and don't voice their opinions?
A motion like the one brought forward is not a bad thing like some try to make us believe.
Those who oppose it have obviously already lost the confidence in the GC to communicate their decision to help funding the appeal to the rest of the membership.
With the right explanation and more importantly actually outlining how a fair deal for everyone might look like the motion might pass, which in return gives a solid mandate to the GC to continue their path.
btw.: I find it irritating that first we ask the younger generation to join the AOA but than tell them to shut up and don't voice their opinions?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS you are technically correct. Of course, if we simply made all FO/SOs do 92.4credit hours/month(10% more work) for 5% more pay between now and their upgrades they will also be better off as they will have earnt 5% more - and they will have the extra few years as an FO to enjoy the extra 5%.
It depends on whether your aim is to earn as much money as possible in life, have a long retirement or some combination thereof. If the sole aim is money, then everyone is better off with RA65. If the aim is retirement, then everyone is worse off with RA65. If the aim is some compromise of the two, then current CNs are better off with RA65 and FO/SOs are worse off.
What complicates the issue is that there are many who want/need to work to 65 even though they are FO/SOs, and many others that want to earn as much as possible as soon as possible and then leave. RA65 will not suit the latter group.
There are currently 45 FOs on bases senior to the most junior CN. I would say roughly 10 of those are Cat D. Some of the other based FOs are Cat B/C. I have met quite a few FOs in HK who are in receipt of BPP. They are willing and able to do a course but have been found Cat B/C. So to suggest all 55 FOs on BPP are happy go lucky based guys with no intention of doing a command is stretching the truth.
Whilst on BPP you receive CN1 salary - no increments are ever applied. So the loss of career earnings for someone who wants to receive BPP on a base rather than take a command is huge. And just think of the benefit that provides to more junior FOs who are willing to take a command in HKG! If all those pesky based FOs rushed back and did a HK command then all other more junior FOs would have their commands delayed!
According to the definition of BPP only Cat D are not entitled. So yes it might be true that up to 43 recipients of BPP are currently 'unsuitable' for command but there are many current CNs who were made Cat B or C, ie 'unsuitable', in the last few years before ultimately passing their commands. Are we that Darwinian now to deny BPP on seniority? To the victor go the spoils!?
The initiator of this motion is an ex GC member who spent countless hours working/negotiating on our behalf. Being ex GC he understands the rules and regulations and is simply putting into motion what many members want to happen but did not have the knowledge or wherewithal to carry out themselves. Whether you agree with him or not, he is acting in what he thinks is the best interests of the membership!
It depends on whether your aim is to earn as much money as possible in life, have a long retirement or some combination thereof. If the sole aim is money, then everyone is better off with RA65. If the aim is retirement, then everyone is worse off with RA65. If the aim is some compromise of the two, then current CNs are better off with RA65 and FO/SOs are worse off.
What complicates the issue is that there are many who want/need to work to 65 even though they are FO/SOs, and many others that want to earn as much as possible as soon as possible and then leave. RA65 will not suit the latter group.
There are currently 45 FOs on bases senior to the most junior CN. I would say roughly 10 of those are Cat D. Some of the other based FOs are Cat B/C. I have met quite a few FOs in HK who are in receipt of BPP. They are willing and able to do a course but have been found Cat B/C. So to suggest all 55 FOs on BPP are happy go lucky based guys with no intention of doing a command is stretching the truth.
Whilst on BPP you receive CN1 salary - no increments are ever applied. So the loss of career earnings for someone who wants to receive BPP on a base rather than take a command is huge. And just think of the benefit that provides to more junior FOs who are willing to take a command in HKG! If all those pesky based FOs rushed back and did a HK command then all other more junior FOs would have their commands delayed!
According to the definition of BPP only Cat D are not entitled. So yes it might be true that up to 43 recipients of BPP are currently 'unsuitable' for command but there are many current CNs who were made Cat B or C, ie 'unsuitable', in the last few years before ultimately passing their commands. Are we that Darwinian now to deny BPP on seniority? To the victor go the spoils!?
The initiator of this motion is an ex GC member who spent countless hours working/negotiating on our behalf. Being ex GC he understands the rules and regulations and is simply putting into motion what many members want to happen but did not have the knowledge or wherewithal to carry out themselves. Whether you agree with him or not, he is acting in what he thinks is the best interests of the membership!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much NC, very well put. Let the democratic system work. If there are enough people to support the motion, then it will pass and the funding will continue. If there isn't enough support, then it should be abandoned.
box
box
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CryrilJGroove
You asked yesterday for a "younger member" to explain their position.
Whilst I am not sure I would count myself as a "younger member" I support the idea of vote. The GC is empowered and entrusted to make decisions on the way the AOA is run and does so on a daily basis without the need to run to the membership seeking its expressed approval for every decision. No doubt they do so using some basic principles and I shall highlight two such principles.
1. Does the proposal represent value and can the AOA afford it?
2. Is the proposal in line with AOA principles and policy?
This is an Appeal, because your arguments have already been rebuffed once, it is extremely risky. Litigation is expensive and no doubt an Appeal is even more expensive as it is a higher Court, takes more time and presumably a higher grade of Barrister/legal team. Equally, should you lose, you pay the other sides costs and those costs will be greater. The decision to fund this Appeal will draw funds from not only this year, but years to come. I assume the GC believes it is affordable and represents value, however the membership must be made aware of this considerable commitment.
On the second point. The GC must support the aim of litigation. The AOA's policy must be that age 55 is discriminatory and that RA should be 65 or unlimited (subject to medical). As another writer pointed out, because of the construction of the COS, BPP is linked to the phrase " retirement age"; not "age 55", therefore BPP will no longer be paid. Therefore in a nutshell; the AOA's policy is "RA 65, with no BPP".
I think this shift in policy will come as news to most members and it is for this reason a vote should be held.
As an aside, if the GC really wants RA 65 with no BPP why did they emphatically turn down the deal of Aug 07 (with the associated pay rises). To cut to the chase, if the GC really believes in Charlie's Appeal; get PW to walk upstairs to Nicks office and sign a deal putting us all on the failed COS07(without the associated pay rises
) .... saves everyone a lot of time and money....
Whilst I am not sure I would count myself as a "younger member" I support the idea of vote. The GC is empowered and entrusted to make decisions on the way the AOA is run and does so on a daily basis without the need to run to the membership seeking its expressed approval for every decision. No doubt they do so using some basic principles and I shall highlight two such principles.
1. Does the proposal represent value and can the AOA afford it?
2. Is the proposal in line with AOA principles and policy?
This is an Appeal, because your arguments have already been rebuffed once, it is extremely risky. Litigation is expensive and no doubt an Appeal is even more expensive as it is a higher Court, takes more time and presumably a higher grade of Barrister/legal team. Equally, should you lose, you pay the other sides costs and those costs will be greater. The decision to fund this Appeal will draw funds from not only this year, but years to come. I assume the GC believes it is affordable and represents value, however the membership must be made aware of this considerable commitment.
On the second point. The GC must support the aim of litigation. The AOA's policy must be that age 55 is discriminatory and that RA should be 65 or unlimited (subject to medical). As another writer pointed out, because of the construction of the COS, BPP is linked to the phrase " retirement age"; not "age 55", therefore BPP will no longer be paid. Therefore in a nutshell; the AOA's policy is "RA 65, with no BPP".
I think this shift in policy will come as news to most members and it is for this reason a vote should be held.
As an aside, if the GC really wants RA 65 with no BPP why did they emphatically turn down the deal of Aug 07 (with the associated pay rises). To cut to the chase, if the GC really believes in Charlie's Appeal; get PW to walk upstairs to Nicks office and sign a deal putting us all on the failed COS07(without the associated pay rises
) .... saves everyone a lot of time and money....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam, your last post is a falsification.
The AOA's policy is age 65 with compensation for all junior officers affected with respect BPP.
It has been stated often enough but perhaps you have not been receiving the newsletters. Could it be that you do not pay subs?
There has been NO shift in policy as you state. Pure falsification.
If you want a say in directing the course of AOA policy then join up, pay your subs and send in a letter for all to read.
The AOA's policy is age 65 with compensation for all junior officers affected with respect BPP.
It has been stated often enough but perhaps you have not been receiving the newsletters. Could it be that you do not pay subs?
There has been NO shift in policy as you state. Pure falsification.
If you want a say in directing the course of AOA policy then join up, pay your subs and send in a letter for all to read.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading the AOA missives they say they are supporting a fair and reasonable RA65 agreement and that the company needs to recognise there is contractual BPP in some of the crews COS. I have been told the total cost iof the appeal is around 30K GPB. Furthermore the AOA is about to present a proposal to the company seeking to clear up this mess. My argument is that it is not the time to side track the GC on an issue that is not overly expensive, nor is the funding crucial to the case. The case will go ahead. The impact will be the same regardless. I for one will offer Charlie financial assistance should the funding be pulled. Remember the President has stated it would be an extra ordinary circumstance for our union not to subscribe to the equal opportunity principle for our members.
What particularily frustrates me is that emotion is running so high in the angry younger group they want to cut off affordable funding obviously hoping that the case will stall or fail to benefit their own position.The mob and I mean mob in the true sense of the word who are seeking this motion do not appear to comprehend that there is two ends of the spectrum in our membership. From some comments it seems they have not read or comprehended the AOA's very reasonable position, taking into account the both older and younger membership positions.
Furthermore they choose to ignore recent social and moral shifts in discrimination and continue to subscibe to continuing age discrimination to further their own gains. Scroll thru and read them it is amazing. The old chestnut of you signed it so thats it is spread out thru the thread. Charlie and I signed the COS nearlly 2 decades ago, much has changed since.
It is a fact that BPP is not the most supported aspect of out COS by many as it is the blocker to RA65 being implemented. It is going to a group of crew that in general are not actually being by passed. How would the younger members feel if an EGM was called to show full support for BPP and the motion did not pass. Could we then proceed to negotiate it away. and please this is for example only I do not subscribe to this!
This is what the current motion is asking for, it is asking to take away funding (by voting against the motion) for a very good member of the AOA and I do find that apalling. I also support a negotiated settlement taking into account both ends of the spectrums concerns. The GC are my reps and I want them to do their job without this major unnecessary distraction
The motion has no value to the membership it is a lose lose situation. Try and talk some commonsense to these members.
What particularily frustrates me is that emotion is running so high in the angry younger group they want to cut off affordable funding obviously hoping that the case will stall or fail to benefit their own position.The mob and I mean mob in the true sense of the word who are seeking this motion do not appear to comprehend that there is two ends of the spectrum in our membership. From some comments it seems they have not read or comprehended the AOA's very reasonable position, taking into account the both older and younger membership positions.
Furthermore they choose to ignore recent social and moral shifts in discrimination and continue to subscibe to continuing age discrimination to further their own gains. Scroll thru and read them it is amazing. The old chestnut of you signed it so thats it is spread out thru the thread. Charlie and I signed the COS nearlly 2 decades ago, much has changed since.
It is a fact that BPP is not the most supported aspect of out COS by many as it is the blocker to RA65 being implemented. It is going to a group of crew that in general are not actually being by passed. How would the younger members feel if an EGM was called to show full support for BPP and the motion did not pass. Could we then proceed to negotiate it away. and please this is for example only I do not subscribe to this!
This is what the current motion is asking for, it is asking to take away funding (by voting against the motion) for a very good member of the AOA and I do find that apalling. I also support a negotiated settlement taking into account both ends of the spectrums concerns. The GC are my reps and I want them to do their job without this major unnecessary distraction
The motion has no value to the membership it is a lose lose situation. Try and talk some commonsense to these members.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in time anda space
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr groove
You have one group of guys that have spent 15-30 years here, much of that as captains, watching 100s of their more senior colleagues forced to go at 55. You got your commands fast because of that. Meanwhile in almost every other industry guys were able to work until 60, 65, 70!
You have another group of guys, well over a 1000, who joined cathay in the last decade expecting a command inside a decade because the practice of everyone leaving at 55 was continuing.
Now the group that has benefited for 5,10, 15,20, 25? years of being captains, thanks to all those other guys being forced out too young at 55, is now complaining that the 1000 odd guys that joined expecting a quick command are getting uppity because they have the audacity to want compensation for the contract being changed midstream!
So, just so we are clear, most of you captains have spent decades here watching guys being forced to leave at 55. You have spent decades working with a 55 year termination date and now suddenly its a human rights issue? Puh-lease! At what point in your first 2 decades here did you decide it was a human rights issue?
And those who have joined in the last decade on the premise of captains retiring at 55 have had the rug pulled out from under them by this push to 65. So in effect the current generation of captains are doing the same to FOs today as ASL did to FOs a decade ago! Of course the difference is managment introduced ASL in the 90s whereas it is the our own pilots pushing for 65 now! Is there a shame file for that too cyril?
You have another group of guys, well over a 1000, who joined cathay in the last decade expecting a command inside a decade because the practice of everyone leaving at 55 was continuing.
Now the group that has benefited for 5,10, 15,20, 25? years of being captains, thanks to all those other guys being forced out too young at 55, is now complaining that the 1000 odd guys that joined expecting a quick command are getting uppity because they have the audacity to want compensation for the contract being changed midstream!
So, just so we are clear, most of you captains have spent decades here watching guys being forced to leave at 55. You have spent decades working with a 55 year termination date and now suddenly its a human rights issue? Puh-lease! At what point in your first 2 decades here did you decide it was a human rights issue?
And those who have joined in the last decade on the premise of captains retiring at 55 have had the rug pulled out from under them by this push to 65. So in effect the current generation of captains are doing the same to FOs today as ASL did to FOs a decade ago! Of course the difference is managment introduced ASL in the 90s whereas it is the our own pilots pushing for 65 now! Is there a shame file for that too cyril?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Aboard
21 Years as an FO, 10.5 in CX as an FO before command in seniority , Initially 72 hour contract then 84, initially 8 weeks leave then 6, Then ASL lost 5 years, No By Pass Pay or compensation could have taken a command out of seniority but waited my turn. Sat back and watched folks with 15 years less senior take B744 commands, was 30-40 pilots a year on extensions no BPP.....no sport no shame at all, no one guaranteed time to command I thought it was going to be 3 years like the Capt I did the course with but the COS kept changing, NEVER HAD A COS TELLING ME WHEN I would get a command, and never screwed my fellow pilot. Most senior guys were Check and Training and many stayed on and a lot took freighters, actually very few left at 55, but hey lets just say 100's left because it sounds convincing.
And the world changed a little in the mean time, and now new joiners can work to 65. Tell me Hiro you have a choice sign a legally binding document saying you will leave at 55 and you can have BPP or choose No BPP and stay as long as you like. The CP on a certain fleet is asking the Question and no one has offered to sign the paper.
OH yes Hiro, when they left at 55 that was in the contract for everbody but these days If you come from OASIS or BA or off the street you can go to 65. Somehow you do not want that equal opportunity available to everyone that is the big difference.
Looks like all aboad the ship of shame for you Hiro
And the world changed a little in the mean time, and now new joiners can work to 65. Tell me Hiro you have a choice sign a legally binding document saying you will leave at 55 and you can have BPP or choose No BPP and stay as long as you like. The CP on a certain fleet is asking the Question and no one has offered to sign the paper.
OH yes Hiro, when they left at 55 that was in the contract for everbody but these days If you come from OASIS or BA or off the street you can go to 65. Somehow you do not want that equal opportunity available to everyone that is the big difference.
Looks like all aboad the ship of shame for you Hiro
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 11th Jan 2009 at 16:00.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes and by the way have any of you mental giants out there figured out why CX is using all sorts of forums and contacts to talk about BPP and the fact who is getting it and their suitability. Have you figured out why they are asking you if you would sign up to 65 and sign away BPP or if you would stick with 55 and BPP. Been in this outfit for a while and a familiar smell is in the air. Wondered why the company is just sucking it all up at the moment and staying quiet.
CX is aware that the motion has divided the old and young members and they will pounce . They know of the lack of overall support for BPP going to those not bypassed. They know what you have told them about BPP. They know that both legal and moral issues are catching up with them. Do you know you have just handed the DFO a virtually no cost option to sort this mess out. I reckon I could almost draft the DFO's letter. You younger ones are going to wonder how you stuffed this up and come out with no compensation for BPP, you are going to have been totally outsmarted by CX and you know what, on the basis of your recent actions you deserve what is about to come.
Come on Mr Management draft the DFO's letter, I bet you are spot on.
Not only the ship of shame, you had better get a ticket on the ship of fools also
CX is aware that the motion has divided the old and young members and they will pounce . They know of the lack of overall support for BPP going to those not bypassed. They know what you have told them about BPP. They know that both legal and moral issues are catching up with them. Do you know you have just handed the DFO a virtually no cost option to sort this mess out. I reckon I could almost draft the DFO's letter. You younger ones are going to wonder how you stuffed this up and come out with no compensation for BPP, you are going to have been totally outsmarted by CX and you know what, on the basis of your recent actions you deserve what is about to come.
Come on Mr Management draft the DFO's letter, I bet you are spot on.
Not only the ship of shame, you had better get a ticket on the ship of fools also
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiro,
Why haven’t you and some of your mates taken the time to read this thread? Are you so angry that you just skip to the end to post your venom? In your last few posts you keep repeating questions that have been answered, I thought quite clearly, in earlier posts.
For instance you ask why we didn’t do something about age 55 years ago. Your spin is always the same: we’re selfish, we’ve been molly-coddled with special treatment, etc, etc, etc.
Well, about 50 posts ago, I said:
“Why didn’t we older blokes say something 10 years ago? Well, because…it wasn’t an option then. There was ONE common COS for all pilots. The rules were clear and inviolate! Everyone had a good provident fund, good pay and conditions. Nobody was allowed to stay beyond 55. There was only the one set of rules.
The rules also said junior crew were not allowed to jump seniority and do an early freighter command. Those of us, who were here then, can remember that the notion of jumping your mates in the Command queue was treated as nothing short of Blasphemy. It was forbidden by the Union, and those that did were shunned. ASL and early commands had a significant impact on many of us who ultimately had our Commands delayed for years (five years for me) with no bypass pay or compensation. If you weren’t here, then try to imagine telling your best mate you were going to jump him in the command queue. Friendships were ruined. Remember?
But undeniably, the game was beginning to change, whether we wanted to believe it or not.
Over the next 10 years or so, dozens of different COS and conditions evolved. To the point where today, quite frankly, it’s a mess! Today there are no longer one set of rules, but rather many options available for both the younger crew and older crew that were not available 10 years ago. These changes have mostly been for the junior crews, but for several years now, the older crew have been watching as large numbers continue to work beyond 55.
So naturally, given the wide range of packages out there, everyone examines his/her personal circumstances in that context. Should I take an early Command, should I work beyond 55, should I go on a base, take a joker, resign and rejoin on COS 08 so I can take a base, what are your conditions, what are my conditions, what are his conditions, etc, etc, etc. It’s a mess!
Many younger pilots have been all over the map while exploring different COS and career options within Cathay, because things have changed, industrial relations have soured, and different options are now commonplace. So, given the history, is it really fair for you same people, who have personally explored different options to which you joined on, disparage me and my mates nearing 55 for exploring the options open to us? Let’s be fair, honest, and consistent here.
What we need is a common set of conditions, like we used to have. By any moral standard, the Company must be convinced that a common set of working conditions is necessary for a stable and happy work force to exist. Otherwise, there will be an ultimate cost. Until then, until the AOA can sit down with the Company and hammer a deal out, well… we are all just trying to do what’s best for our families and us.”
So, Hiro, Puh-lease. You know, like, don’t keep repeating a question that’s been answered already. Go ahead, have your petition, destroy the Union, then…..well, even if you win you lose.
Why? Because quite frankly, I’ve spoken to quite a number of my mates, who are fed up with the shortsightedness of our younger colleagues. What you’re forgetting is that we’ve been here before. We’ve seen the cuts and many changing conditions. You haven’t.
What you don’t realize, or are not thinking through, is that after the vote, after the Union collapses, the Company will still extend us anyway. That’s why this “angle of yours” is shortsighted. Instead of presenting a united front, your advocating dismemberment. But the people you want to hurt will come out OK, because the Company will still extend the Captains. How’s that for poetic justice?
And you….well, lets just say you might grow to regret your myopia.
Why haven’t you and some of your mates taken the time to read this thread? Are you so angry that you just skip to the end to post your venom? In your last few posts you keep repeating questions that have been answered, I thought quite clearly, in earlier posts.
For instance you ask why we didn’t do something about age 55 years ago. Your spin is always the same: we’re selfish, we’ve been molly-coddled with special treatment, etc, etc, etc.
Well, about 50 posts ago, I said:
“Why didn’t we older blokes say something 10 years ago? Well, because…it wasn’t an option then. There was ONE common COS for all pilots. The rules were clear and inviolate! Everyone had a good provident fund, good pay and conditions. Nobody was allowed to stay beyond 55. There was only the one set of rules.
The rules also said junior crew were not allowed to jump seniority and do an early freighter command. Those of us, who were here then, can remember that the notion of jumping your mates in the Command queue was treated as nothing short of Blasphemy. It was forbidden by the Union, and those that did were shunned. ASL and early commands had a significant impact on many of us who ultimately had our Commands delayed for years (five years for me) with no bypass pay or compensation. If you weren’t here, then try to imagine telling your best mate you were going to jump him in the command queue. Friendships were ruined. Remember?
But undeniably, the game was beginning to change, whether we wanted to believe it or not.
Over the next 10 years or so, dozens of different COS and conditions evolved. To the point where today, quite frankly, it’s a mess! Today there are no longer one set of rules, but rather many options available for both the younger crew and older crew that were not available 10 years ago. These changes have mostly been for the junior crews, but for several years now, the older crew have been watching as large numbers continue to work beyond 55.
So naturally, given the wide range of packages out there, everyone examines his/her personal circumstances in that context. Should I take an early Command, should I work beyond 55, should I go on a base, take a joker, resign and rejoin on COS 08 so I can take a base, what are your conditions, what are my conditions, what are his conditions, etc, etc, etc. It’s a mess!
Many younger pilots have been all over the map while exploring different COS and career options within Cathay, because things have changed, industrial relations have soured, and different options are now commonplace. So, given the history, is it really fair for you same people, who have personally explored different options to which you joined on, disparage me and my mates nearing 55 for exploring the options open to us? Let’s be fair, honest, and consistent here.
What we need is a common set of conditions, like we used to have. By any moral standard, the Company must be convinced that a common set of working conditions is necessary for a stable and happy work force to exist. Otherwise, there will be an ultimate cost. Until then, until the AOA can sit down with the Company and hammer a deal out, well… we are all just trying to do what’s best for our families and us.”
So, Hiro, Puh-lease. You know, like, don’t keep repeating a question that’s been answered already. Go ahead, have your petition, destroy the Union, then…..well, even if you win you lose.
Why? Because quite frankly, I’ve spoken to quite a number of my mates, who are fed up with the shortsightedness of our younger colleagues. What you’re forgetting is that we’ve been here before. We’ve seen the cuts and many changing conditions. You haven’t.
What you don’t realize, or are not thinking through, is that after the vote, after the Union collapses, the Company will still extend us anyway. That’s why this “angle of yours” is shortsighted. Instead of presenting a united front, your advocating dismemberment. But the people you want to hurt will come out OK, because the Company will still extend the Captains. How’s that for poetic justice?
And you….well, lets just say you might grow to regret your myopia.
Last edited by raven11; 11th Jan 2009 at 18:15.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number Cruncher.
Mate, you've annunciated the loss of career earnings our junior members will suffer if age 65 goes through. But for the benefit of those who joined in the last nine years or so, would you mind putting a number on the loss of pay suffered by those in our demographic from such minor setbacks as ASL delaying our commands by five years on average, with no BPP. Don't forget to include the loss of our potential salary increments as Captains. And while your at it, can you please tack on the loss to our career earnings following the salary cutbacks in 99?
Full disclosure for our junior members please, so that they can make a more informed decision as to their petition.
Mate, you've annunciated the loss of career earnings our junior members will suffer if age 65 goes through. But for the benefit of those who joined in the last nine years or so, would you mind putting a number on the loss of pay suffered by those in our demographic from such minor setbacks as ASL delaying our commands by five years on average, with no BPP. Don't forget to include the loss of our potential salary increments as Captains. And while your at it, can you please tack on the loss to our career earnings following the salary cutbacks in 99?
Full disclosure for our junior members please, so that they can make a more informed decision as to their petition.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven,
good post. You are nearly;-) always very logical and deductive.
Lost career earnings.
I have not actually worked out an exact figure because, frankly, it would upset me to know how much I thought I was going to earn rather than what I do. But here are a few facts that might put it into perspective.
The share options I got would have had to rise to $35-40 to compensate me for the paycuts - I sold mine around $10-11 due to personal circumstances back when they first vested. So I made a (taxable) profit of $2.5-$3.5 per share vs the necessary $27-32 required to fully compensate my paycuts!
I can't remember if it was the company and/or the AOA but we were told that the options were to cover 10 years of payloss as B scales would have caught up to A scales by then. Here we are 10 years later with a 20% gap between the scales!
Our A scale salaries are around 1993 levels. Given the double digit payrises enjoyed in the 80s it was a bit of a culture shock to have stagnant pay, and then paycuts.
Not many people start work with a company and expect to be on the same pay scales 16 years later!
So yes A scale have suffered huge loss and opportunity costs. I don't like to focus on that though as we still earn and have earnt more than B scalers over any comparable time frame. Its hard to garner sympathy with the argument that you expected 8 pieces of pizza and ended up with 6 when newer joiners can only expect up to 4 pieces!
kitsune,
Since I joined CX I have moved up about 600-700 slots on the seniority list. If we had RA65 the day I joined, I would have moved somewhere around 100-300 slots. My command would have been in the last year or two instead of 7 years ago. I don't know/have the data/demographics of previous employees and of course I have made two HUGE assumptions - no one leaves before 65 and no one loses their medical.
So my point it is that of course RA65 is going to have a major impact and we need to be mindful/considerate of the consequence that will have on future career progression. If there is no expansion and RA65 comes in then we could have up to a decade with no upgrades.
As I have said before, this is a difficult issue. I think both 'sides' have very valid arguments. Personally I am glad that decisions on issues like this are made democratically - whether that be a committee of 20 or a membership of over 1400. It has been good to read some logical arguments on this thread, along with the usual hysteria, catastrophising and apportionment of blame!
good post. You are nearly;-) always very logical and deductive.
Lost career earnings.
I have not actually worked out an exact figure because, frankly, it would upset me to know how much I thought I was going to earn rather than what I do. But here are a few facts that might put it into perspective.
The share options I got would have had to rise to $35-40 to compensate me for the paycuts - I sold mine around $10-11 due to personal circumstances back when they first vested. So I made a (taxable) profit of $2.5-$3.5 per share vs the necessary $27-32 required to fully compensate my paycuts!
I can't remember if it was the company and/or the AOA but we were told that the options were to cover 10 years of payloss as B scales would have caught up to A scales by then. Here we are 10 years later with a 20% gap between the scales!
Our A scale salaries are around 1993 levels. Given the double digit payrises enjoyed in the 80s it was a bit of a culture shock to have stagnant pay, and then paycuts.
Not many people start work with a company and expect to be on the same pay scales 16 years later!
So yes A scale have suffered huge loss and opportunity costs. I don't like to focus on that though as we still earn and have earnt more than B scalers over any comparable time frame. Its hard to garner sympathy with the argument that you expected 8 pieces of pizza and ended up with 6 when newer joiners can only expect up to 4 pieces!
kitsune,
Since I joined CX I have moved up about 600-700 slots on the seniority list. If we had RA65 the day I joined, I would have moved somewhere around 100-300 slots. My command would have been in the last year or two instead of 7 years ago. I don't know/have the data/demographics of previous employees and of course I have made two HUGE assumptions - no one leaves before 65 and no one loses their medical.
So my point it is that of course RA65 is going to have a major impact and we need to be mindful/considerate of the consequence that will have on future career progression. If there is no expansion and RA65 comes in then we could have up to a decade with no upgrades.
As I have said before, this is a difficult issue. I think both 'sides' have very valid arguments. Personally I am glad that decisions on issues like this are made democratically - whether that be a committee of 20 or a membership of over 1400. It has been good to read some logical arguments on this thread, along with the usual hysteria, catastrophising and apportionment of blame!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
btw.: I find it irritating that first we ask the younger generation to join the AOA but than tell them to shut up and don't voice their opinions?
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 12th Jan 2009 at 12:01.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, you go away on two weeks leave and come back to find another 6 pages of comment! Whilst I knew it was an issue that most people had a firm view in one direction or another, I didn't realize it would be quite such a polarizing and divisive issue when I posted the 1st comment. I guess I misjudged that as much as the GC misjudged the mood of the membership, according to comments here anyway, although if the EGM aspect doesnt get the 10% support, the GC obviously did get it right.
As a member, I have the utmost respect for the GC and those individuals who have selflessly given up their time to help us. I feel sure that that by and large they genuinely feel that they are doing what's best for us.
However is it right that we question their decisions in general and this funding decision in particular?
Clearly when the office needs a new paper clip, the staff need to be able to buy it without question. However, with aspects of a larger magnitude, such as when discussions about new COS have culminated in probably another shonky company offer, not only would the merits be discussed amongst the GC, but we would then receive their suggestions of wether to vote for or against.
We then vote, any democratic vote is upheld (assuming we don't have a re-run of the CoS04 2nd vote debacle), and we move forward on the basis of such a vote. Life is easy when such clear opposite ends of the spectrum are so much easier to quantify.
Unfortunately, this appeal funding seems to have beeen perceived to be in the grey area in the middle, where it fell to the GC to debate and decide what to do, and it must have been viewed as sufficiently unremarkable as the GC made their decision without reference to the membership.
Could anybody really think they did it to be deliberately devisive - obviously not, but therein may give junior members cause for thought that the demographics of the GC may not be evenly representative of the junior crew.
Nobody could deny that it is a little top heavy, and for many aspects in dealing with company issues, that could well be appropriate. But as this thread perhaps indicates, the major percentage of the FO/SO proportion of the company, do not seem to favour the approach taken by the GC on this issue. In the future, perhaps more of our FO's and SO's would care to stand for election so that when GC dabate time comes around, they can add the viewpoints of their peers, who may have another 30 yrs of indentured service left, to any GC discussion or vote.
That many here have said it will break the union and cause untold ructions, could be pure scaremongering. People have also said that by starting the EGM motion, that this will be the cause of a divisive split.
Well may I suggest IMHO that the start of any such split occured when the GC chose to agree to give said funding. That it has happened is history, but we as a membership now have to sort out the situation that's subsequently evolved.
What we now have the hard task of deciding, is firstly, wether to write to the AOA to say yes go ahead with the EGM, and secondly, if 144 members have done so, the even harder decision to vote for/against funding. Either vote may have significant ramifications for both oldies like me, young folks I fly with, and not least the GC.
It maybe a pipe dream, but I would still dearly like to see a NRA negotiation with the company, where the AOA and company agree to a change to NRA for all crew, where financial and command/upgrade disadvantages are compensated or kept to a minimum, which as always may require a compromise on both sides. However the financial climate and the timescale of this case may have unfortunately put that on the back burner.
So finally, could I implore people on both sides to try hard and put themselves in the other persons shoes for a while, to see their viewpoint as clearly as possibly, and then having sat on their hands for a time consider the long reaching effects of your vote. Definately not a time for a knee jerk vote, as this EGM really does not seem to have any good options, just a couple of bad ones which may see significant numbers of losers on one side and significant bad feeling on the other side.
Let the democratic process begin..........
As a member, I have the utmost respect for the GC and those individuals who have selflessly given up their time to help us. I feel sure that that by and large they genuinely feel that they are doing what's best for us.
However is it right that we question their decisions in general and this funding decision in particular?
Clearly when the office needs a new paper clip, the staff need to be able to buy it without question. However, with aspects of a larger magnitude, such as when discussions about new COS have culminated in probably another shonky company offer, not only would the merits be discussed amongst the GC, but we would then receive their suggestions of wether to vote for or against.
We then vote, any democratic vote is upheld (assuming we don't have a re-run of the CoS04 2nd vote debacle), and we move forward on the basis of such a vote. Life is easy when such clear opposite ends of the spectrum are so much easier to quantify.
Unfortunately, this appeal funding seems to have beeen perceived to be in the grey area in the middle, where it fell to the GC to debate and decide what to do, and it must have been viewed as sufficiently unremarkable as the GC made their decision without reference to the membership.
Could anybody really think they did it to be deliberately devisive - obviously not, but therein may give junior members cause for thought that the demographics of the GC may not be evenly representative of the junior crew.
Nobody could deny that it is a little top heavy, and for many aspects in dealing with company issues, that could well be appropriate. But as this thread perhaps indicates, the major percentage of the FO/SO proportion of the company, do not seem to favour the approach taken by the GC on this issue. In the future, perhaps more of our FO's and SO's would care to stand for election so that when GC dabate time comes around, they can add the viewpoints of their peers, who may have another 30 yrs of indentured service left, to any GC discussion or vote.
That many here have said it will break the union and cause untold ructions, could be pure scaremongering. People have also said that by starting the EGM motion, that this will be the cause of a divisive split.
Well may I suggest IMHO that the start of any such split occured when the GC chose to agree to give said funding. That it has happened is history, but we as a membership now have to sort out the situation that's subsequently evolved.
What we now have the hard task of deciding, is firstly, wether to write to the AOA to say yes go ahead with the EGM, and secondly, if 144 members have done so, the even harder decision to vote for/against funding. Either vote may have significant ramifications for both oldies like me, young folks I fly with, and not least the GC.
It maybe a pipe dream, but I would still dearly like to see a NRA negotiation with the company, where the AOA and company agree to a change to NRA for all crew, where financial and command/upgrade disadvantages are compensated or kept to a minimum, which as always may require a compromise on both sides. However the financial climate and the timescale of this case may have unfortunately put that on the back burner.
So finally, could I implore people on both sides to try hard and put themselves in the other persons shoes for a while, to see their viewpoint as clearly as possibly, and then having sat on their hands for a time consider the long reaching effects of your vote. Definately not a time for a knee jerk vote, as this EGM really does not seem to have any good options, just a couple of bad ones which may see significant numbers of losers on one side and significant bad feeling on the other side.
Let the democratic process begin..........
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number Cruncher
Likewise to you my friend. I always enjoy and appreciate the hard work you put into your posts. I know we all do.
But NC, really, to use your analogy, is it OK now for the younger guys to vote on taking the whole pizza....all eight pieces? While they cast their older colleagues to the wind without so much as a breadstick? This would be shameful!
Or, next time we go out for drinks, is it OK to let one bloke buy rounds all night, then turn our backs on him, force him out, and order a round just for ourselves? This too would be shameful!
A united front, and a balanced, fair agreement is what we all need. What we don't need, now that AOA membership numbers are creeping up again, is a form of democratic tyranny, where the current majority forms a mob to protect only their interests.
Number Cruncher, as a long time member, like me, you know what fragmenting the AOA in the past has resulted in. How many times have I heard the argument that we should have not allowed B scale to occur in 93. That we, the majority then, should not have allowed the B scale implementation. We should have considered the long term cause and effect.
In retrospect, I think we all knew what the effect would be, but we just kept our heads down and hoped for the best as B scale was only implemented on the new joiners. Then we ALL watched as it occurred again, and again, and again, with C, D, and O scales.
How many people, who today advocate this shameful petition, also think it was wrong that B scale was allowed to occur by the then AOA? How about you NC? I've heard this point a million times! Is it fair then, or smart, for the current majority, now that the shoe is on the other foot, to do essentially the same thing? Or is it short sighted and hypocritical?
Likewise to you my friend. I always enjoy and appreciate the hard work you put into your posts. I know we all do.
But NC, really, to use your analogy, is it OK now for the younger guys to vote on taking the whole pizza....all eight pieces? While they cast their older colleagues to the wind without so much as a breadstick? This would be shameful!
Or, next time we go out for drinks, is it OK to let one bloke buy rounds all night, then turn our backs on him, force him out, and order a round just for ourselves? This too would be shameful!
A united front, and a balanced, fair agreement is what we all need. What we don't need, now that AOA membership numbers are creeping up again, is a form of democratic tyranny, where the current majority forms a mob to protect only their interests.
Number Cruncher, as a long time member, like me, you know what fragmenting the AOA in the past has resulted in. How many times have I heard the argument that we should have not allowed B scale to occur in 93. That we, the majority then, should not have allowed the B scale implementation. We should have considered the long term cause and effect.
In retrospect, I think we all knew what the effect would be, but we just kept our heads down and hoped for the best as B scale was only implemented on the new joiners. Then we ALL watched as it occurred again, and again, and again, with C, D, and O scales.
How many people, who today advocate this shameful petition, also think it was wrong that B scale was allowed to occur by the then AOA? How about you NC? I've heard this point a million times! Is it fair then, or smart, for the current majority, now that the shoe is on the other foot, to do essentially the same thing? Or is it short sighted and hypocritical?