AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril
You're really wound up about this and I posed a few questions a page or so ago which you declined to comment on. Can I now repeat what I said and ask you to comment please?
There are clearly some very strong feelings on either side of this debate. I can understand why the majority are not in favour of their money being spent in this way but no one has yet successfully argued why AOA funds should be used for this appeal. Indeed Loopdeloop says the appellant has enough wealthy backers to fund his fees without the AOA getting involved at all – so why did they?
Whether the appeal is won or lost the only people affected will be those who are on a UK base who wish to work beyond 55 and stay on their base. The outcome will not affect either way anybody else’s chances of achieving NRA 65 so the majority are funding an appeal which affects a minority. Even if the appeal is won the final outcome for those affected is unclear. The company is not likely to offer NRA 65 on present terms and conditions. They may well offer COS 2008 to all on the UK base thus complying with the judgement but where does this place those unwilling to sign COS 08? They would have been offered employment to age 65 as required but would then have turned the offer down thus voluntarily choosing to cease employment when their existing contracts expire at age 55. This is about retirement age and not contract law. I would suggest that any legal action brought in order to force the company to offer a new contract to age 65 with existing T & C’s would be a very expensive and futile exercise.
How does such a scenario help the remainder of the workforce – it doesn’t. This is a UK appeal and the result irrelevant elsewhere. Thus those who believe a successful appeal will affect anyone other than UK based pilots are dreaming.
So please can someone explain why the GC got involved in the first place?
There are clearly some very strong feelings on either side of this debate. I can understand why the majority are not in favour of their money being spent in this way but no one has yet successfully argued why AOA funds should be used for this appeal. Indeed Loopdeloop says the appellant has enough wealthy backers to fund his fees without the AOA getting involved at all – so why did they?
Whether the appeal is won or lost the only people affected will be those who are on a UK base who wish to work beyond 55 and stay on their base. The outcome will not affect either way anybody else’s chances of achieving NRA 65 so the majority are funding an appeal which affects a minority. Even if the appeal is won the final outcome for those affected is unclear. The company is not likely to offer NRA 65 on present terms and conditions. They may well offer COS 2008 to all on the UK base thus complying with the judgement but where does this place those unwilling to sign COS 08? They would have been offered employment to age 65 as required but would then have turned the offer down thus voluntarily choosing to cease employment when their existing contracts expire at age 55. This is about retirement age and not contract law. I would suggest that any legal action brought in order to force the company to offer a new contract to age 65 with existing T & C’s would be a very expensive and futile exercise.
How does such a scenario help the remainder of the workforce – it doesn’t. This is a UK appeal and the result irrelevant elsewhere. Thus those who believe a successful appeal will affect anyone other than UK based pilots are dreaming.
So please can someone explain why the GC got involved in the first place?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril
eerr ... that is exactly the point I was making about Air India; I thought my post was self explanatory.
You bang on about not supporting the petition but supporting the AOA in gaining a "settlement". You don't specify what that "settlement" is, but be honest, you want the non-Capts to sacrifice BPP in the hope of getting a deal on RA? Am I wrong?
You bang on about not supporting the petition but supporting the AOA in gaining a "settlement". You don't specify what that "settlement" is, but be honest, you want the non-Capts to sacrifice BPP in the hope of getting a deal on RA? Am I wrong?
In Qantas the senior S/O's get more than the junior F/O's don't they?
You blokes have got to stop your bitching.
I WILL be working past 55, I have NO CHOICE anymore since lots and lots of Captains in front of me worked past 55 on **** pay thus lowering the bar. ( or making it impossible to raise ) I CANNOT afford to retire at 55.
Sad but true.
You blokes have got to stop your bitching.
I WILL be working past 55, I have NO CHOICE anymore since lots and lots of Captains in front of me worked past 55 on **** pay thus lowering the bar. ( or making it impossible to raise ) I CANNOT afford to retire at 55.
Sad but true.
Last edited by ACMS; 22nd Jan 2009 at 02:49.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS,
You don't have to retire at 55 now either - you just have to change jobs.
The CX gig ends at 55 for anybody pre COS08.
You can keep flying after that anywhere you like - even CX freighters
You don't have to retire at 55 now either - you just have to change jobs.
The CX gig ends at 55 for anybody pre COS08.
You can keep flying after that anywhere you like - even CX freighters
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all comes to nought.
NR will have a new contract in your mailbox before the end of the 1st quarter which gives you a choice (sic)
- 65 and no bypass pay
- 55 and bypass pay
Yet again the top floor gets what it wants because of the "it doesn't affect me" brigade who sit on the sidelines and gleefully accept the scraps thrown them rather than collectively bargain for a better deal.
NR will have a new contract in your mailbox before the end of the 1st quarter which gives you a choice (sic)
- 65 and no bypass pay
- 55 and bypass pay
Yet again the top floor gets what it wants because of the "it doesn't affect me" brigade who sit on the sidelines and gleefully accept the scraps thrown them rather than collectively bargain for a better deal.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hkg
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not get that?
How does a new contract 65 no BPP and 55 get BPP have anything to do with the argument?
The contract as it stands is legally binding until it is MUTUALLY changed? The whole debate is how the current one might not be legal in the UK?
As such putting that contract in your mailbox is a waste of paper is it not??
The contract as it stands is legally binding until it is MUTUALLY changed? The whole debate is how the current one might not be legal in the UK?
As such putting that contract in your mailbox is a waste of paper is it not??
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scaremongering
I've been here for a long time and three "facts" have been spouted to me about once a month since the turn of the century. These are:
1. "There'll be a new contract in your mailbox tomorrow/next week/next month."
2. "Age 65 is coming whether you want it or not."
3. "We'll be 3-man to Europe by next year."
I realise that many of the people saying these really are scared, but please don't try to worry new crew with such nonsense by stating them as fact. All three need to be negotiated, be it with the AOA or the CAD.
1. "There'll be a new contract in your mailbox tomorrow/next week/next month."
2. "Age 65 is coming whether you want it or not."
3. "We'll be 3-man to Europe by next year."
I realise that many of the people saying these really are scared, but please don't try to worry new crew with such nonsense by stating them as fact. All three need to be negotiated, be it with the AOA or the CAD.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firewall is on the money, he is actually telling people this is what he is proposing. He is also proposing a poison chalice nothing as quite as simple as 2 easy choices. It will enrage everyone and possibly bring even more court action against him, but this is what he is telling crew this week. He has a novel way of resolving A and B scales!
Firewall is also correct that collective bargaining is the way to resolve this.
And for those that apparently cannot read and keep saying no solutions have been put forward please read below.
Anthrax agree but the story above is true, 100% Ring him, email him stop him in the street, thats this weeks line
Firewall is also correct that collective bargaining is the way to resolve this.
And for those that apparently cannot read and keep saying no solutions have been put forward please read below.
As I said earlier, a defined benefit retirement scheme, pay rates, and all of the freighter jobs to those on our list in order, the old A Vs B scales are all issues worth resolving once and for all. Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition.
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 22nd Jan 2009 at 09:20.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anthracx, were you here the last time we had a contract thrown in our mailboxes?
Was it a negotiated contract?
Guess you ain't been here that long then.
Finally, scared is not the word. How about disappointed in the myopic stupidity that typifies the Cathay Pacific Pilot.
Was it a negotiated contract?
Guess you ain't been here that long then.
Finally, scared is not the word. How about disappointed in the myopic stupidity that typifies the Cathay Pacific Pilot.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril
Some basic questions are being asked of you and it's becoming obvious you don't wish to answer them.
The only deal the company is offering is RA65 for all, with varying pay cuts beyond 55, in return for the dropping of BPP. They are not offering the total A scale (or B-scale) package to anyone and they never will; unless a Court orders them to; and as night follows day; BPP will go as well.
So when you say "Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition" you really mean the Non-Capts should drop BBP from their contracts in return for RA65. Further, if you get a deal it will certainly be conditional on Charlie (or anyone else) withdrawing his litigation. If it is on anything less than full A-Scale, how are you going to get Charlie to drop his Age discrimination claim, because clearly anything less than the full A-scale package beyond 55 is discriminatory?
The only deal the company is offering is RA65 for all, with varying pay cuts beyond 55, in return for the dropping of BPP. They are not offering the total A scale (or B-scale) package to anyone and they never will; unless a Court orders them to; and as night follows day; BPP will go as well.
So when you say "Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition" you really mean the Non-Capts should drop BBP from their contracts in return for RA65. Further, if you get a deal it will certainly be conditional on Charlie (or anyone else) withdrawing his litigation. If it is on anything less than full A-Scale, how are you going to get Charlie to drop his Age discrimination claim, because clearly anything less than the full A-scale package beyond 55 is discriminatory?
Pot of Gold at 65?
huh............I'm not expecting anything big from this company.
All I'm saying is that I too will HAVE to extend past 55 just to live. And I'll bet ALL of you young ones will too.
If I had a dollar for every 53 yo Pilot that told me they would stop flying for CX at 55 I wouldn't be faced with this propect.
I mean how many retirees at 55 declined an extension? Must be only a few, nearly all have taken the deal.
Lets face facts here, most WILL take the deal.
So lets stop bull****ting ourselves shall we and JUST NEGOTIATE A PROPER package for all past 55.
huh............I'm not expecting anything big from this company.
All I'm saying is that I too will HAVE to extend past 55 just to live. And I'll bet ALL of you young ones will too.
If I had a dollar for every 53 yo Pilot that told me they would stop flying for CX at 55 I wouldn't be faced with this propect.
I mean how many retirees at 55 declined an extension? Must be only a few, nearly all have taken the deal.
Lets face facts here, most WILL take the deal.
So lets stop bull****ting ourselves shall we and JUST NEGOTIATE A PROPER package for all past 55.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS
Have you not been a captain for a while? So how have a handful of extendees affected you financially to the point where you have to work past 55 "to just live"!
You're certainly correct, lets stop B
S you make quite a bit more than 99% of captains at other airlines, so you should certainly heed your own advice.
You spout union stuff when it certainly suits you, but when it doesn't suit your agenda, f union values....what a top bloke you are 
Have you not been a captain for a while? So how have a handful of extendees affected you financially to the point where you have to work past 55 "to just live"!
In Qantas the senior S/O's get more than the junior F/O's don't they?
You blokes have got to stop your bitching.
You blokes have got to stop your bitching.
S you make quite a bit more than 99% of captains at other airlines, so you should certainly heed your own advice.You spout union stuff when it certainly suits you, but when it doesn't suit your agenda, f
union values....what a top bloke you are
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connect The Dots
Liam
BPP is a very valuable inclusion in your contract, it has worth, however you cannot reasonably expect to be paid BPP if RA65 is in everybody's contract. I am saying that there has to be some compensation for BPP and it should go to those effected by the changes. Previous posts have the suggestions but at the end of the day it should be collectively bargained. The GC have many different costed options from what they tell us in newsletters. Get something positive for BPP. I do agree with your last paragraph in general Liam
AnthraCX
.
This is why your boss is contemplating giving you a choice, you can stay on your current contract with BPP or choose RA65 with no BPP, some other nasties are there as well. Personally I think his plan is flawed because ultimately he is still age discriminating with different pay scales based on age and indeed just having contracts with differing age criteria is probably illegal in many countries we have crew based in.
Firewall
Harsh but essentially true, how about these classics
HMMMM
Tiger321
With attitudes like this it is no wonder discrimination laws are evolving
Typifies the jealous envy in the young angry men, you have a union aready supporting you and all members (are you one). They even understand COSAP 94 COS 99 OBS SIGN OR BE FIRED, something you might need to be educated on,
History lessons can be very important tools, something the proposers of the motion have not considered, their short sighted poorly thought out strategy has given the company incentive to seriously contemplate a contract choice lobbing in the mailboxes. The company have done their homework, they know virtually everyone when faced with a choice of 55 or 65 will sign to 65. I am not saying that is a legal approach or it will work and it may well be the start of legal action unprecedented in CX, however we need a strong union intact to mount a challenge and the petition backers are dividing the membership.
So when you say "Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition" you really mean the Non-Capts should drop BBP from their contracts in return for RA65
AnthraCX
Google is your friend here, but essentially the judge ruled that an employer does not have the right to unilaterally change your contract without your consent
This is why your boss is contemplating giving you a choice, you can stay on your current contract with BPP or choose RA65 with no BPP, some other nasties are there as well. Personally I think his plan is flawed because ultimately he is still age discriminating with different pay scales based on age and indeed just having contracts with differing age criteria is probably illegal in many countries we have crew based in.
Firewall
How about disappointed in the myopic stupidity that typifies the Cathay Pacific Pilot.
How does a new contract 65 no BPP and 55 get BPP have anything to do with the argument?
Tiger321
You don't have to retire at 55 now either - you just have to change jobs.
The CX gig ends at 55 for anybody pre COS08.
You can keep flying after that anywhere you like
The CX gig ends at 55 for anybody pre COS08.
You can keep flying after that anywhere you like
So a year 9 S/O (which RA65 would obviously introduce) would take a 10K 25% pay cut to become a year 1 J/FO so you senior members could get your pot of gold. And the AOA supports this? Nice. The 1500 crew who joined after 99 need a union that supports them.
History lessons can be very important tools, something the proposers of the motion have not considered, their short sighted poorly thought out strategy has given the company incentive to seriously contemplate a contract choice lobbing in the mailboxes. The company have done their homework, they know virtually everyone when faced with a choice of 55 or 65 will sign to 65. I am not saying that is a legal approach or it will work and it may well be the start of legal action unprecedented in CX, however we need a strong union intact to mount a challenge and the petition backers are dividing the membership.
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 24th Jan 2009 at 09:22.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cryil
You say..."I am saying that there has to be some compensation for BPP..." but you also say .."however you cannot reasonably expect to be paid BPP if RA65 is in everbodys contract."
I would imagine there is agreement on the first of your comments and the second would be a complex legal argument worthy of an additional thread (but please don't)
However, in a nutshell your 2 quotes have identified the problem with the funding. The AOA is putting it's money behind the argument RA55 is discriminatory and there is a fair chance that if that argument prevails: BPP will disappear. So what has happened to the compensation you speak of.... collateral damage, acceptable loss??
The membership should be asked; What policy do they want RA65 or BPP? (you can't have both). The funding of the Litigation is effectively making that decision through the backdoor; no discussion, debate, let alone a vote.
I would imagine there is agreement on the first of your comments and the second would be a complex legal argument worthy of an additional thread (but please don't)
However, in a nutshell your 2 quotes have identified the problem with the funding. The AOA is putting it's money behind the argument RA55 is discriminatory and there is a fair chance that if that argument prevails: BPP will disappear. So what has happened to the compensation you speak of.... collateral damage, acceptable loss??
The membership should be asked; What policy do they want RA65 or BPP? (you can't have both). The funding of the Litigation is effectively making that decision through the backdoor; no discussion, debate, let alone a vote.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril,
Thanks for quoting me out of context in your last post. Had you added the rest of it you may have noticed that it was tongue in cheek.
The case for the company putting a new contract in the mailbox is a lousy one. Think about this logically - at a time when we are over crewed why would they want RA65? Perhaps a few years down the line when the "financial tsunamis" have passed and the A Scale is a thing of the past they will consider it. (Note: I am not pulling for the A scale to disappear)
You might counter that they will have no choice IF Charlie wins in court. True, but judging from round 1 in the courts a win for Charlie seems unlikely. Even if he did succeed how long will the legal wrangling go on for before we actually see RA65 in our contract?
This whole saga is not about RA65 it is about the rights and wrongs of the AOA paying for Charlies case.
Last year the membership voted on whether Capt XXX should receive some financial support from the membership after Topcover refused his LOL claim. Why then should the membership not vote on whether we should be paying for Charlies case? We are a democracy are we not?
By calling people who are working within the rules of the organisation but who happen to disagree with your point of view "the list of shame backers" it is you Sir who looks foolish.
Thanks for quoting me out of context in your last post. Had you added the rest of it you may have noticed that it was tongue in cheek.
The case for the company putting a new contract in the mailbox is a lousy one. Think about this logically - at a time when we are over crewed why would they want RA65? Perhaps a few years down the line when the "financial tsunamis" have passed and the A Scale is a thing of the past they will consider it. (Note: I am not pulling for the A scale to disappear)
You might counter that they will have no choice IF Charlie wins in court. True, but judging from round 1 in the courts a win for Charlie seems unlikely. Even if he did succeed how long will the legal wrangling go on for before we actually see RA65 in our contract?
This whole saga is not about RA65 it is about the rights and wrongs of the AOA paying for Charlies case.
Last year the membership voted on whether Capt XXX should receive some financial support from the membership after Topcover refused his LOL claim. Why then should the membership not vote on whether we should be paying for Charlies case? We are a democracy are we not?
By calling people who are working within the rules of the organisation but who happen to disagree with your point of view "the list of shame backers" it is you Sir who looks foolish.
Last edited by tiger321; 23rd Jan 2009 at 00:11.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here and There
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been suggested in this forum that we just accept RA65 without BPP.
Well I have another suggestion:
We leave RA55 in place until the most junior crew on COS99 has had an attempt at command! That way nobody is disadvantaged when RA65 comes in.
Extreme? Probably, but the two cases above are the opposite extremes. Idea 1 puts all junior crew at a disadvantage and idea 2 puts all senior crew in that boat.
Like it? You sure will if you are 42ish or younger. Approaching 50? You might not like it so much!
The solution lies somewhere in the middle. Get your creative hats on.
W2
Well I have another suggestion:
We leave RA55 in place until the most junior crew on COS99 has had an attempt at command! That way nobody is disadvantaged when RA65 comes in.
Extreme? Probably, but the two cases above are the opposite extremes. Idea 1 puts all junior crew at a disadvantage and idea 2 puts all senior crew in that boat.
Like it? You sure will if you are 42ish or younger. Approaching 50? You might not like it so much!
The solution lies somewhere in the middle. Get your creative hats on.
W2
$6 million OZ
Holy crap Batman.
Sorry mate, but just like you I'm a B scaler and my PF ain't worth jack Shi
Even if I did stay till 65 ( which I don't plan to ) I'd be lucky to have around $6 mill HKD...............( now I have after 14 years 1.6 Million, so another 20 years 4 million total )
And yes............I was screwed over by quite a few CX decisions in the past, ASL being one.
So get over yourself and wake up mate.
We are not all A scale BTC's you know
Holy crap Batman.
Sorry mate, but just like you I'm a B scaler and my PF ain't worth jack Shi
Even if I did stay till 65 ( which I don't plan to ) I'd be lucky to have around $6 mill HKD...............( now I have after 14 years 1.6 Million, so another 20 years 4 million total )
And yes............I was screwed over by quite a few CX decisions in the past, ASL being one.
So get over yourself and wake up mate.
We are not all A scale BTC's you know
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Whittle Formula
Years ago there used to be something called 'The Whittle Formula' which is a simple way (had to be after all those nights in the Tannemor) of working out what you need for your pension pot. It assumes that your mortgage has been paid off, and that your snappers have graduated to the prison of their choice. All you need to do then is multiply the annual sum that you THINK you will require to live a comfortable life style by 23.5. The resulting (frightening) number will pay you the sum you first thought of for 40 years (inflation adjusted), allowing you to tip the vicar your last quid as you get lowered into the hole........
Start saving out of wages boys,.........NOW
Start saving out of wages boys,.........NOW
Must be bigger than 23.5 now with the interest rates currently (and for the foreseeable future) being paid!
Probably the no. you first thought of times 35 or something similar. Who knows?
IE - for someone wanting to retire on £35K a year in UK, you would need £1.225 Million pension pot.
Good luck!!
Probably the no. you first thought of times 35 or something similar. Who knows?
IE - for someone wanting to retire on £35K a year in UK, you would need £1.225 Million pension pot.
Good luck!!