Unified Ra65 For All In Cx
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unified Ra65 For All In Cx
The “Funding” thread has drifted somewhat and has it has been the De Facto Retirement Debate thread I thought it was an opportunity to start a fresh thread on the issue.
Firstly let me say the vast majority of “younger” crew are absolutely top class ladies and gentlemen and I enjoy working and socializing with them immensely. The dopey “stillalbotrosses” of the world are few and far between and create a false impression of our newer colleagues. The initial two second officers taking the company to task over BPP are obviously of the highest integrity and should be acknowledged for their actions.
I remember the sickening feeling in my stomach when ASL was announced and I witnessed Direct Entry Captains filing thru the door and my junior colleagues falling over themselves taking Freighter Captain slots in ASL. My expectation on recruitment was less than 4 years to command, however due to many factors it ballooned out to well over 10 years in the RHS. This obviously had major financial implications and I fully understand the gut wrenching disappointment and financial flow on adverse effects that RA65 means to many junior crews.
Having said that it seems that a very narrow perspective is being taken on the RA65 issue and that it automatically adds 10 years to each promotion. It is obvious that whenever RA65 is introduced either in the near or medium or long term it is going to cause some pain, however the most vocal opponents do not acknowledge the long term benefits which an increase to RA65 will bring to them. To many of them even 55 seems to be light years away and whilst it is very easy to bang your chest and pronounce to the world that you want a life and will leave at 50 Rah Rah Rah and be downright abusive and rude, the reality is that old age creeps up very quickly. The short term losses have the potential to be more than compensated for in the long term.
We have an outrageous situation in CX whereby the most senior crew are being age discriminated against and on approaching 55 are being offered inferior contracts of 1 year with 6 weeks enforced leave yet ex Oasis crew who failed CX command are now somehow DEFO’s recruited on base (at least one chap 58yo) and have a full contract until 65. We have many flights which the Captain is the only one the crew forced to retire at 55 as all other crew are COS 08.
Despite rumours to the contrary Nigel is the only chap I know that has not been offered an extension and that was for a very lame manufactured “technical” reason. The other initials being bandied around are some way off 55 yet and I have spoken to some of them personally to get accurate facts. As another poster on another thread said, RA 65 is already here, it is just the finer details that need to be worked out.
Increases in RA have recently occurred in BA QF and many other airlines, why is it so much more difficult to do in CX?
Firstly let me say the vast majority of “younger” crew are absolutely top class ladies and gentlemen and I enjoy working and socializing with them immensely. The dopey “stillalbotrosses” of the world are few and far between and create a false impression of our newer colleagues. The initial two second officers taking the company to task over BPP are obviously of the highest integrity and should be acknowledged for their actions.
I remember the sickening feeling in my stomach when ASL was announced and I witnessed Direct Entry Captains filing thru the door and my junior colleagues falling over themselves taking Freighter Captain slots in ASL. My expectation on recruitment was less than 4 years to command, however due to many factors it ballooned out to well over 10 years in the RHS. This obviously had major financial implications and I fully understand the gut wrenching disappointment and financial flow on adverse effects that RA65 means to many junior crews.
Having said that it seems that a very narrow perspective is being taken on the RA65 issue and that it automatically adds 10 years to each promotion. It is obvious that whenever RA65 is introduced either in the near or medium or long term it is going to cause some pain, however the most vocal opponents do not acknowledge the long term benefits which an increase to RA65 will bring to them. To many of them even 55 seems to be light years away and whilst it is very easy to bang your chest and pronounce to the world that you want a life and will leave at 50 Rah Rah Rah and be downright abusive and rude, the reality is that old age creeps up very quickly. The short term losses have the potential to be more than compensated for in the long term.
We have an outrageous situation in CX whereby the most senior crew are being age discriminated against and on approaching 55 are being offered inferior contracts of 1 year with 6 weeks enforced leave yet ex Oasis crew who failed CX command are now somehow DEFO’s recruited on base (at least one chap 58yo) and have a full contract until 65. We have many flights which the Captain is the only one the crew forced to retire at 55 as all other crew are COS 08.
Despite rumours to the contrary Nigel is the only chap I know that has not been offered an extension and that was for a very lame manufactured “technical” reason. The other initials being bandied around are some way off 55 yet and I have spoken to some of them personally to get accurate facts. As another poster on another thread said, RA 65 is already here, it is just the finer details that need to be worked out.
Increases in RA have recently occurred in BA QF and many other airlines, why is it so much more difficult to do in CX?
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 26th Feb 2009 at 10:05.
The only "outragous situation" is that our most senior aircrew actually accept the garbage contract the company offer. The modern corporate ethos is to offer less and less (sound familiar) until noone accepts it, and only then increase it a little. If our senior gentlemen had of displayed a little solidarity( I work at cx, hence I'm not even sure how to spell it) as to what is and isn't acceptable over the last 2/3 years they would not be in the position now where they(we) will be forced to accept the crumbs that fall off the company's table. Thanks gents
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North america
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-post
Age 65...Easy. Company just has to pay for it.
Everybody goes to Age 65 at B scale or better. Bottom 5 increments on Captain scale and bottom 2 increments on F/O scale taken out and all increments go to 25 years instead of 17.
Or
Pay bypass until the cows come home.
Joe
(I'm a B scale captain that prefers NOT to have RA65 but willing to look at it if the deal is right for EVERYBODY)
PS Too many pro-RA65er's here sound like greedy bastards and too many anti-RA65er's here sound like they are still pissing into diapers....all of you GROW up and recognize who the enemy here is...it's not each other.
Standing by for the incoherent, one sided flaming.....
Everybody goes to Age 65 at B scale or better. Bottom 5 increments on Captain scale and bottom 2 increments on F/O scale taken out and all increments go to 25 years instead of 17.
Or
Pay bypass until the cows come home.
Joe
(I'm a B scale captain that prefers NOT to have RA65 but willing to look at it if the deal is right for EVERYBODY)
PS Too many pro-RA65er's here sound like greedy bastards and too many anti-RA65er's here sound like they are still pissing into diapers....all of you GROW up and recognize who the enemy here is...it's not each other.
Standing by for the incoherent, one sided flaming.....
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody goes to Age 65 at B scale or better. Bottom 5 increments on Captain scale and bottom 2 increments on F/O scale taken out and all increments go to 25 years instead of 17.
Or
Pay bypass until the cows come home.
Or
Pay bypass until the cows come home.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyril
Joeshoe says... "Age 65...Easy. Company just has to pay for it."
Those of us in the real world know that will not happen; Therefore, I see only 3 ways forward;
1. The Status Quo remains.
2. A "New Deal" is introduced which is RA65-No BPP. I suspect this would fall down partisan lines, because the Junior Crew are not prepared to accept a period of some 10 years with no promotion/ bases. Obviously, this will be a bit less if guys voluntarily retire before 65, or a bit more if RA subsequently extends out to 68/70 or unlimited (which exists in some Countries).
3. A "New Deal" is introduced whereby 55+ take a bigger hit in earnings to subsidize a transparent and fair compensation for disadvantaged Junior Crew. Again down partisan lines, and Senior Crew will again (with some justification) scream "discrimination".
So there you have it in a nutshell Cryril..... can you think of any other options? Thought not, as this has been done to death and only ever ends up with these 3 options.
Cyril, although I read the words in your originating post, what my brain actually registered was the following question..... You Junior Crew are nice guys (no really..I mean it), why don't you just bend over and take one for us old guys?.... or am being too cynical...?
Those of us in the real world know that will not happen; Therefore, I see only 3 ways forward;
1. The Status Quo remains.
2. A "New Deal" is introduced which is RA65-No BPP. I suspect this would fall down partisan lines, because the Junior Crew are not prepared to accept a period of some 10 years with no promotion/ bases. Obviously, this will be a bit less if guys voluntarily retire before 65, or a bit more if RA subsequently extends out to 68/70 or unlimited (which exists in some Countries).
3. A "New Deal" is introduced whereby 55+ take a bigger hit in earnings to subsidize a transparent and fair compensation for disadvantaged Junior Crew. Again down partisan lines, and Senior Crew will again (with some justification) scream "discrimination".
So there you have it in a nutshell Cryril..... can you think of any other options? Thought not, as this has been done to death and only ever ends up with these 3 options.
Cyril, although I read the words in your originating post, what my brain actually registered was the following question..... You Junior Crew are nice guys (no really..I mean it), why don't you just bend over and take one for us old guys?.... or am being too cynical...?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam et al,
if the company continues to extend guys, like they did in the past and certainly plan to do in the future, then there is no penalty regarding time to command !
So with RA65 the only thing on stake is BPP, but of course you get the chance ( and security!) to earn 10 more years in return. I think it is a no-brainer, really. If we don't get it now, COS 08 guys will vote against it in the future, we might get absolutely nothing with 55..
if the company continues to extend guys, like they did in the past and certainly plan to do in the future, then there is no penalty regarding time to command !
So with RA65 the only thing on stake is BPP, but of course you get the chance ( and security!) to earn 10 more years in return. I think it is a no-brainer, really. If we don't get it now, COS 08 guys will vote against it in the future, we might get absolutely nothing with 55..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pill,
when you bring up the old chestnut of "senior gentlemen" accepting a lesser deal you leave yourself open to the obvious response of "You accepted B scale and lowered the bar" It is a circuitous argument and it probably does not have an answer. Cathay Pacific Airways makes the pay scales not the employees.
Joe Shmoe
There is some money in the pot being paid as BPP and something should go to those effected by RA 65. The trick is how to chisel it out of a company that wants to give nothing for RA65. From what I hear the AOA'S proposal is not a costly one however the company have a very closed mind on it.
Liam
I have always acknowledged that at some point in time someone will be affected by RA 65 just like it was in QF BA and many other airlines. That might be now or 10 years time and we would all be better served by a negotiated settlement. The extra 10 years of service would be available to everyone something that could be very handy to those that can't see it yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is changing, CX is one of the few airlines that discriminates on reaching 55 and offers hand picked extensions and a lower payscale. I certainly do not think that by wanting to have the same equal opportunity as new hires to opt to work past 55 is in any way screwing the junior crew as they will have the same opportunity. If you don't thinK the world is changing the following article may enlighten some of you.
Retirement by 70 a fading hope for many
MORE than a third of older workers now plan to work until they are at least 70, in an astonishing cultural change, the Bureau of Statistics reports.
A survey taken in mid-2007, but released yesterday, reports that 15 per cent of workers aged 45 and over say they don't plan to retire, but just keep working until they drop. Most intend to ease down to part-time work. But, overall, less than 30 per cent of middle-aged and older now intend to retire before they turn 65.
If this eventuates, it will transform the workforce and concepts of retirement. The bureau found people already retired, on average, did so aged just 58 for men and 47 for women.
That change is now under way. Bureau figures show that in November, 60 per cent of men aged 60 to 64 were still in the workforce — as were 29 per cent of men aged 65 to 69 and 7 per cent of men 70 and over. Women are catching up: 39 per cent of those aged 60 to 64 are still at work, as are 15 per cent of those aged 65 to 69, and 2 per cent of the over-70s.
when you bring up the old chestnut of "senior gentlemen" accepting a lesser deal you leave yourself open to the obvious response of "You accepted B scale and lowered the bar" It is a circuitous argument and it probably does not have an answer. Cathay Pacific Airways makes the pay scales not the employees.
Joe Shmoe
There is some money in the pot being paid as BPP and something should go to those effected by RA 65. The trick is how to chisel it out of a company that wants to give nothing for RA65. From what I hear the AOA'S proposal is not a costly one however the company have a very closed mind on it.
Liam
I have always acknowledged that at some point in time someone will be affected by RA 65 just like it was in QF BA and many other airlines. That might be now or 10 years time and we would all be better served by a negotiated settlement. The extra 10 years of service would be available to everyone something that could be very handy to those that can't see it yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is changing, CX is one of the few airlines that discriminates on reaching 55 and offers hand picked extensions and a lower payscale. I certainly do not think that by wanting to have the same equal opportunity as new hires to opt to work past 55 is in any way screwing the junior crew as they will have the same opportunity. If you don't thinK the world is changing the following article may enlighten some of you.
Retirement by 70 a fading hope for many
MORE than a third of older workers now plan to work until they are at least 70, in an astonishing cultural change, the Bureau of Statistics reports.
A survey taken in mid-2007, but released yesterday, reports that 15 per cent of workers aged 45 and over say they don't plan to retire, but just keep working until they drop. Most intend to ease down to part-time work. But, overall, less than 30 per cent of middle-aged and older now intend to retire before they turn 65.
If this eventuates, it will transform the workforce and concepts of retirement. The bureau found people already retired, on average, did so aged just 58 for men and 47 for women.
That change is now under way. Bureau figures show that in November, 60 per cent of men aged 60 to 64 were still in the workforce — as were 29 per cent of men aged 65 to 69 and 7 per cent of men 70 and over. Women are catching up: 39 per cent of those aged 60 to 64 are still at work, as are 15 per cent of those aged 65 to 69, and 2 per cent of the over-70s.
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 27th Feb 2009 at 05:09.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Box
Not suggesting anyone here in CX wants to work to they drop, however 55 is way way to young and the same equal opportunity should be available to everyone.
Not suggesting anyone here in CX wants to work to they drop, however 55 is way way to young and the same equal opportunity should be available to everyone.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speak for yourself. 55 is not too young for me. And if I subsequently decide to p!ss money away on 3 more wives, a Dubai property and an Ostrich farm, then any plans for my employment beyond 55 will not involve CX.
Why? Well, strangely enough, I joined on a contract that had 55 RA. Ergo, it's my problem, not CX's.
Of course, if all that fails, I'll spill some hot coffee on myself and then sue the coffee manufacturer. Why take responsibility for yourself when it's never your fault?
Why? Well, strangely enough, I joined on a contract that had 55 RA. Ergo, it's my problem, not CX's.
Of course, if all that fails, I'll spill some hot coffee on myself and then sue the coffee manufacturer. Why take responsibility for yourself when it's never your fault?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
supersmart:
don't you get it ?????? the company extends guys now ANYWAY !!!!!!!!!
NOBODY is interested in your contract! NOBODY!!! it is simply about having the GUARANTEED oportunity YOURSELF when you are 55 !!!!! jesus, this isn't rocket science... ???!!! Don't be a fool, this is about YOUR financial future, it is NOT about discrimination, contracts, or any other b*ullsh*t, it is about you missing the whole point!
no offense, sorry, but it is really so clear that you guys are flying kamikaze style just because you are p*ssed off like a little kid that doesn't get the cooky, but you are shootin YOURSELF in the foot. There is no way you are going to retire at 55, you know it ,I know it, and certainly the company knows it. Just do the math including a little something called INFLATION.
don't you get it ?????? the company extends guys now ANYWAY !!!!!!!!!
NOBODY is interested in your contract! NOBODY!!! it is simply about having the GUARANTEED oportunity YOURSELF when you are 55 !!!!! jesus, this isn't rocket science... ???!!! Don't be a fool, this is about YOUR financial future, it is NOT about discrimination, contracts, or any other b*ullsh*t, it is about you missing the whole point!
no offense, sorry, but it is really so clear that you guys are flying kamikaze style just because you are p*ssed off like a little kid that doesn't get the cooky, but you are shootin YOURSELF in the foot. There is no way you are going to retire at 55, you know it ,I know it, and certainly the company knows it. Just do the math including a little something called INFLATION.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Syphilis,
I do get it. I don't want to work beyond 55, and if I am required to do so then it will not, repeat NOT be with Cathay for all those reasons you have mentioned (degraded contracts, COS08 advantages etc...).
I am not so naive as to think that circumstances don't change, but then you rage at me with one of the biggest oxymorons in history:
So, let me get your logic straight: CX won't honour our contracts NOW, but by some miracle, if we negotiate a RA65 for all they will guarantee that when the time comes?
Now, I'm not even sure what that means, but I am certainly not "p*ssed off". I simply stated that I'm want to retire at 55 and I don't share your view on it being the company's fault if I'm not able to retire at 55. It may surprise you, but not everyone shares your view about wanting, nay, needing RA65 and the beauty of these forums is that here they're allowed to express this opinion. Hopefully, without the broadside of vitriol I seem to have copped here!
Thank you for your condescension. I'm sorry, but no, you do not know what I or anyone else for that matter will (or will not) be able to do with regards to retirement at age 55. you cannot possible know what other peoples financial plans/circumstances are and would be foolish to assume that everyone shares your view.To presume otherwise is arrogance pure and simple.
In short, I respectfully disagree with your opinion for the NEED of RA65, but I will defend to the death your right to democratically petition for it.
A-Scales for all I say!!
(NOW who's being naive?!?)
I do get it. I don't want to work beyond 55, and if I am required to do so then it will not, repeat NOT be with Cathay for all those reasons you have mentioned (degraded contracts, COS08 advantages etc...).
I am not so naive as to think that circumstances don't change, but then you rage at me with one of the biggest oxymorons in history:
NOBODY is interested in your contract! NOBODY!!! it is simply about having the GUARANTEED oportunity YOURSELF when you are 55 !!!!!
...it is really so clear that you guys are flying kamikaze style just because you are p*ssed off like a little kid that doesn't get the cooky...
There is no way you are going to retire at 55, you know it ,I know it, and certainly the company knows it. Just do the math including a little something called INFLATION.
In short, I respectfully disagree with your opinion for the NEED of RA65, but I will defend to the death your right to democratically petition for it.
A-Scales for all I say!!
(NOW who's being naive?!?)
90%+ of all 55 y.o.'s have extended.
The number is sooo close to 100% it doesn't matter.
The sad fact is nearly ALL take it, and they took it on a crap deal just so they could stay and top up their A scale P funds. We are the ones that will NEED to take the extension when we get to 55 and they lowered the bar way too far.
The number is sooo close to 100% it doesn't matter.
The sad fact is nearly ALL take it, and they took it on a crap deal just so they could stay and top up their A scale P funds. We are the ones that will NEED to take the extension when we get to 55 and they lowered the bar way too far.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS
The extendee deal is not crap. To put it into perspective the Asian Freighter pay scale which all locally employed COS08 freighter pilots receive is competive with the salary at SIA, CAL, KAL, OHK (RIP) etc etc. However extendees receive B scale at the equivalent seniority level they had when reaching 55. Hence the extendee does much better by staying wih CX than taking his chances elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS...as usual, your comments are disingenuous. Most 'A' scalers have NOT retired with the old A scale prov fund. Most were 'enticed' onto bases, with the understanding that they would give up the P-fund, but gain a better lifestyle. Only a few years later, the company threw a 'sign or be fired' contract at them, involving serious pay cuts. Many of the A scalers were seriously disadvantaged, and if they had known, would never have gone on a base to begin with. I suggest you direct your frustrations to the REAL cause of your frustrations, instead of constantly berating people who had a reasonable understanding when they were hired as to their career 'expectations'. Perhaps even you have the intelligence to see the synchronicity between the A scalers having their career earnings affected by the company, and now the B scalers are having their career earnings affected by....THE COMPANY. Grow up little man.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS
ACMS
It could also be argued that the original B scalers lowered the bar in 94.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was CX who lowered the bar and divided and conquered.
We are the ones that will NEED to take the extension when we get to 55 and they lowered the bar way too far.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was CX who lowered the bar and divided and conquered.
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 27th Feb 2009 at 05:39.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
superfrozo,
you are of course right to have your opinion, didn't mean to insult you, unfortunately I tend to get emotional in that matter, my apologies.
Having said that, I still believe those opposing RA 65 are doing three big mistakes :
1.) They believe they will have enough assets to retire with 55.
Things like financial mismanagement ,divorce, children education funding, illness,housing problems, etc are problems of other people.
Most importantly they are either not aware of the effect of inflation or they chose to ignore it. They believe calculations like e.g. 2 or 3 million A$ in 30 years is a lot of money and sufficient. They also believe that 5-6 % interest rate excluding inflation per year is no problem at all. It is also their understanding that once you have bought a house, it won't need any refurbishment or maintenance, and of course it will climb steadily in value.
They also ignore the fact that when you retire with 55, you must be able to support yourself plus wife, maybe kids, for 30-40 years(!). They ignore the fact that the average life expectancy is approaching 80 for men and 90 for women, and that includes heroin junkies, smokers and people with a body mass index of a whale.They also believe you don't need much money when your old.
In some countries you don't have to pay for health insurance, they believe this will always be the case, with an acceptable standard of course. Those living in countries where you have to pay for it already believe it will always be affordable and there is no need to adjust that figure for inflation.
The fact that 90% of those actually given the opportunity to work beyond 55 take it, is irrelevant to them. They think these guys are stupid/on their third wife/spend there money in Macao or Dubai/don't have a life/have absolutely nothing to do with me.
Finally they have big trust in their financial institutions and their goverments, there is absolutely no need to fear higher/extra tax, currency fluctuations or phases of hyper inflation, since politicians and bankers are absolutely trustworthy and know exactly what they are doing.
2.) They think RA 65 will slow down their career.
Since CX extends those reaching 55 anyway, there is little effect regarding time to command. The big question is if CX will still do that in 20 years from now. They are either willing to gamble their financial future that they will, or they think working as contractor with age 60 out of Lagos is great fun and sure an ex CX pilot will always get a job.
3.) They believe that CX will install RA65 at a later stage anyway, preferably when they have their command secured.
The more COS 08 guys join, the more unlikely is a majority for RA65
you are of course right to have your opinion, didn't mean to insult you, unfortunately I tend to get emotional in that matter, my apologies.
Having said that, I still believe those opposing RA 65 are doing three big mistakes :
1.) They believe they will have enough assets to retire with 55.
Things like financial mismanagement ,divorce, children education funding, illness,housing problems, etc are problems of other people.
Most importantly they are either not aware of the effect of inflation or they chose to ignore it. They believe calculations like e.g. 2 or 3 million A$ in 30 years is a lot of money and sufficient. They also believe that 5-6 % interest rate excluding inflation per year is no problem at all. It is also their understanding that once you have bought a house, it won't need any refurbishment or maintenance, and of course it will climb steadily in value.
They also ignore the fact that when you retire with 55, you must be able to support yourself plus wife, maybe kids, for 30-40 years(!). They ignore the fact that the average life expectancy is approaching 80 for men and 90 for women, and that includes heroin junkies, smokers and people with a body mass index of a whale.They also believe you don't need much money when your old.
In some countries you don't have to pay for health insurance, they believe this will always be the case, with an acceptable standard of course. Those living in countries where you have to pay for it already believe it will always be affordable and there is no need to adjust that figure for inflation.
The fact that 90% of those actually given the opportunity to work beyond 55 take it, is irrelevant to them. They think these guys are stupid/on their third wife/spend there money in Macao or Dubai/don't have a life/have absolutely nothing to do with me.
Finally they have big trust in their financial institutions and their goverments, there is absolutely no need to fear higher/extra tax, currency fluctuations or phases of hyper inflation, since politicians and bankers are absolutely trustworthy and know exactly what they are doing.
2.) They think RA 65 will slow down their career.
Since CX extends those reaching 55 anyway, there is little effect regarding time to command. The big question is if CX will still do that in 20 years from now. They are either willing to gamble their financial future that they will, or they think working as contractor with age 60 out of Lagos is great fun and sure an ex CX pilot will always get a job.
3.) They believe that CX will install RA65 at a later stage anyway, preferably when they have their command secured.
The more COS 08 guys join, the more unlikely is a majority for RA65
Last edited by sisyphos; 27th Feb 2009 at 07:01.