COS08 RA65 SLS - everybody calm down!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COS08 RA65 SLS - everybody calm down!
After reading the various threads it seems everyone is going ballistic without having all the facts in front of them.
The facts as we know them on Sunday the 19th:
- A DFO update stating there is an agreement with the AOA and an email from the AOA stating there is a recommendation coming.
IF the AOA agreed to it, my speculation based on my long experience in observing CX and the AOA:
-The deal will include the following: RA 65 for those who sign, A scalers to go to B scale at 55 or after a "fixed number of years" - this caters for the LEP's who joined on A scale at age 24 in 1992/93 who will still be on A scale in 2021 by which time (finally) B should have overtaken A so they may have an option to change over earlier if advantageous.
-What we have been after since 1994 - bringing the freighters back into the fold - a UCN scale (B scale) to go with the UFO scale. THIS IS THE BEST PART OF THE DEAL . This means if you are an PAX F/O or S/O it is as if CX just bought 20 Jets and they will be delivered shortly. If PAX and Freighters are no different (as per pre ‘94) the pool of available Commands / FO upgrades has just increased by the size of the freighter fleet. No more taking reduced conditions to go on the freighter or freighter bases - a win surely! Not only that, it should largely cancel out the delaying of commands due to RA 65 (once the GFC effect is out of the way).
. Also no more DEC's 
-Those such as the OASIS DEC geriatrics etc will be stuck on (old) freighter scale, flying freighters until they can hold a pax command (never - due age). Those who have gone for early command on the freighter will be on the (old) freighter scale flying freighters until they can hold a pax command (typically a few years). All future vacancies go in seniority on the PAX scale.
-Scope clause - a long term item on the AOA wish list.
-The end of clause 35.3 - look it up - no more 49ers.
-The only losers are A scalers who thought they would win the UK court case that would give them A scale to 65. No doubt as terms of the deal the AOA funding for that case will be withdrawn.
Like I say – all of the above is guess work knowing what was in the original COS 08 negotiation (which we never voted on because the then GC wouldn’t let us) plus the water that has gone under the bridge since then.
BTW – Are we sorry yet we (or the then GC on our behalf) rejected the original COS 08 yet?
Don’t forget it included 5% (3% scale/2%HDP) payrise on 01 Jan 09 (can’t see that in my pay packet). Changing B scale increments to 2%, up from 1.8% which added up to over 3% for a 10 yr Captain. A-scalers were to move to COS 08 at 55 but retain salary scale under the original proposal.
To refresh your memories the then GC rejected it because the pay rise wasn’t enough, even thought the sub-prime crisis was well and truly in the news by Aug 07, unhappiness with F/O & S/O compensation for RA 65 and the abolition of the FACA – all of which have now come to pass except we don’t have the money! The only better part of the current deal, and granted it is a big plus (compared to original COS08), is the abolition of freighter COS in the long term.
IMHO lesson = If CX puts money on the table grab it quick – if you reject it will not be seen again for a long time. Come back later and tidy up loose ends.
Another thought for the day: who was in charge of personnel the last time we got a pay rise over 10% in one year? None other than TT – so while there have been some silly comments coming from him e.g. “Management, unlike the rest of you, got no pay rise this year” a lot of the debate about TT is rather one dimensional.
Others say they won’t help until A/C orders are cancelled or there are layoffs, a couple of thoughts on that score: Failing to renew the fleet is a classic mistake that was partly responsible for sending US carriers (and Ansett) into bankruptcy, of course we are having capacity reduction with the departure of the Classic, parking of BCF’s and having the 772’s and A340’s for sale.
As to layoffs – you have to think of the HK political dynamic – they are a foreign “hong” managing the SAR’s flag carrier and as such to keep they have to keep impressing the HK and mainland governments – one of their credentials will be that they kept people’s livelihoods intact while every other airline / major corporate sacked people thereby establishing that (a) they are good managers and (b) they care about HK & China. Donald Tsang doesn’t care about the minutiae of the deal as long as there are no embarrassing layoffs. Enacting the SLS scheme rather than layoffs demonstrates to suppliers (from whom they are asking for discounts) that times are indeed tough. My advice for the SLS scheme is just take it go somewhere and relax – if things recover as fast as some posters seem to believe then you’ll make it all back in overtime anyway. If you really can’t afford to give up 11% (F/O case) for six months then write to NR, explain your situation and offer to give up the money when your circumstances change. Don’t forget if you are a F/O or a S/O your upgrade depends on your flying skill AND P-file – not agreeing with it just stating fact. Watch the last 30 sec. of TT’s video, do SLS and hold him to his promise after all we have him on video this time.
So there are my two cents worth and speculation – BTW to all those going ballistic and flaming management – keep it up – I like a bit of reverse expectation management
The facts as we know them on Sunday the 19th:
- A DFO update stating there is an agreement with the AOA and an email from the AOA stating there is a recommendation coming.
IF the AOA agreed to it, my speculation based on my long experience in observing CX and the AOA:
-The deal will include the following: RA 65 for those who sign, A scalers to go to B scale at 55 or after a "fixed number of years" - this caters for the LEP's who joined on A scale at age 24 in 1992/93 who will still be on A scale in 2021 by which time (finally) B should have overtaken A so they may have an option to change over earlier if advantageous.
-What we have been after since 1994 - bringing the freighters back into the fold - a UCN scale (B scale) to go with the UFO scale. THIS IS THE BEST PART OF THE DEAL . This means if you are an PAX F/O or S/O it is as if CX just bought 20 Jets and they will be delivered shortly. If PAX and Freighters are no different (as per pre ‘94) the pool of available Commands / FO upgrades has just increased by the size of the freighter fleet. No more taking reduced conditions to go on the freighter or freighter bases - a win surely! Not only that, it should largely cancel out the delaying of commands due to RA 65 (once the GFC effect is out of the way).
. Also no more DEC's -Those such as the OASIS DEC geriatrics etc will be stuck on (old) freighter scale, flying freighters until they can hold a pax command (never - due age). Those who have gone for early command on the freighter will be on the (old) freighter scale flying freighters until they can hold a pax command (typically a few years). All future vacancies go in seniority on the PAX scale.
-Scope clause - a long term item on the AOA wish list.
-The end of clause 35.3 - look it up - no more 49ers.
-The only losers are A scalers who thought they would win the UK court case that would give them A scale to 65. No doubt as terms of the deal the AOA funding for that case will be withdrawn.
Like I say – all of the above is guess work knowing what was in the original COS 08 negotiation (which we never voted on because the then GC wouldn’t let us) plus the water that has gone under the bridge since then.
BTW – Are we sorry yet we (or the then GC on our behalf) rejected the original COS 08 yet?
Don’t forget it included 5% (3% scale/2%HDP) payrise on 01 Jan 09 (can’t see that in my pay packet). Changing B scale increments to 2%, up from 1.8% which added up to over 3% for a 10 yr Captain. A-scalers were to move to COS 08 at 55 but retain salary scale under the original proposal.
To refresh your memories the then GC rejected it because the pay rise wasn’t enough, even thought the sub-prime crisis was well and truly in the news by Aug 07, unhappiness with F/O & S/O compensation for RA 65 and the abolition of the FACA – all of which have now come to pass except we don’t have the money! The only better part of the current deal, and granted it is a big plus (compared to original COS08), is the abolition of freighter COS in the long term.
IMHO lesson = If CX puts money on the table grab it quick – if you reject it will not be seen again for a long time. Come back later and tidy up loose ends.
Another thought for the day: who was in charge of personnel the last time we got a pay rise over 10% in one year? None other than TT – so while there have been some silly comments coming from him e.g. “Management, unlike the rest of you, got no pay rise this year” a lot of the debate about TT is rather one dimensional.
Others say they won’t help until A/C orders are cancelled or there are layoffs, a couple of thoughts on that score: Failing to renew the fleet is a classic mistake that was partly responsible for sending US carriers (and Ansett) into bankruptcy, of course we are having capacity reduction with the departure of the Classic, parking of BCF’s and having the 772’s and A340’s for sale.
As to layoffs – you have to think of the HK political dynamic – they are a foreign “hong” managing the SAR’s flag carrier and as such to keep they have to keep impressing the HK and mainland governments – one of their credentials will be that they kept people’s livelihoods intact while every other airline / major corporate sacked people thereby establishing that (a) they are good managers and (b) they care about HK & China. Donald Tsang doesn’t care about the minutiae of the deal as long as there are no embarrassing layoffs. Enacting the SLS scheme rather than layoffs demonstrates to suppliers (from whom they are asking for discounts) that times are indeed tough. My advice for the SLS scheme is just take it go somewhere and relax – if things recover as fast as some posters seem to believe then you’ll make it all back in overtime anyway. If you really can’t afford to give up 11% (F/O case) for six months then write to NR, explain your situation and offer to give up the money when your circumstances change. Don’t forget if you are a F/O or a S/O your upgrade depends on your flying skill AND P-file – not agreeing with it
just stating fact. Watch the last 30 sec. of TT’s video, do SLS and hold him to his promise after all we have him on video this time.So there are my two cents worth and speculation – BTW to all those going ballistic and flaming management – keep it up – I like a bit of reverse expectation management
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-What we have been after since 1994 - bringing the freighters back into the fold - a UCN scale (B scale) to go with the UFO scale. THIS IS THE BEST PART OF THE DEAL . This means if you are an PAX F/O or S/O it is as if CX just bought 20 Jets and they will be delivered shortly.
BTW – Are we sorry yet we (or the then GC on our behalf) rejected the original COS 08 yet?
Don’t forget it included 5% (3% scale/2%HDP) payrise on 01 Jan 09 (can’t see that in my pay packet). Changing B scale increments to 2%, up from 1.8% which added up to over 3% for a 10 yr Captain. A-scalers were to move to COS 08 at 55 but retain salary scale under the original proposal.
Don’t forget it included 5% (3% scale/2%HDP) payrise on 01 Jan 09 (can’t see that in my pay packet). Changing B scale increments to 2%, up from 1.8% which added up to over 3% for a 10 yr Captain. A-scalers were to move to COS 08 at 55 but retain salary scale under the original proposal.
I must say that, overall, this is one of the best posts to date.
More of the same please.
More of the same please.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, very curious post. Far (with a capital F) too detailed to be just your 'speculation'. I surmise that you are either: a) management, b) HKAOA committee member, or c) crazy! Many of the ideas you express are intriguing, but at their end are verging on being apologistic towards managements aims, without the deeper discussion that is needed as to the factual basis for LWOP. If an airline is in serious trouble, they do not continue to spend on all other areas, OTHER than employees. The savings incorporated within the LWOP scheme amount to less than 1% of the annual budget. Basically a 'rounding' error. The company no more 'needs' these cuts than they do new furniture in the Headland Hotel. At it's provable base this is simply a way of cutting deeper into the cost of personnel (again!), and doing so now because the overall economic situation makes it convenient. The main provable fact behind my thesis is that there is no mechanism to return the sacrificed pay back to the hard working employees. Surely this would be the minimum condition that an honourable management would acknowledge? I can accept the company acting as they do, it' in their nature. What I will not accept is the total lack of honesty and contempt shown in their actions. I suggest that being an apologist for TT is not exactly going to garner much in the way of objectivity....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Air Profit,
a) Definately not.
b) No - but I did follow the original COS 08 closely and kept the AOA newsletters (hence being able to cite the figures) The specific one is AOA update from 09Aug07.
c) Guilty as charged
As to returning sacrificed pay - I agree a springback clause would be desirable. Call me an optimist but we did get our SARS pay back and got to have the month off.
a) Definately not.
b) No - but I did follow the original COS 08 closely and kept the AOA newsletters (hence being able to cite the figures) The specific one is AOA update from 09Aug07.
c) Guilty as charged
As to returning sacrificed pay - I agree a springback clause would be desirable. Call me an optimist but we did get our SARS pay back and got to have the month off.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, we did receive the money back last time, but ask yourself a simple question: why not remove anxiety and anger from your staff and clearly state under what conditions the money would be returned? Their absence of such an explanation means that they are quite happy to see their employees suffer needless worry (if they intend to do the honourable thing and return the funds). It is this utter lack of transparency that is so infuriating about working for CX. No management that had a shred of compassion for their staff would conduct business in such a way. However, a greedy and self-serving one would pretty well follow this template. 
Hank Kelleher of Southwest said that he would be nobody, and his airline nothing without his employees. Rather like looking at a photographic negative working for this company.
ps. I enjoyed your answer to C...!
Hank Kelleher of Southwest said that he would be nobody, and his airline nothing without his employees. Rather like looking at a photographic negative working for this company. ps. I enjoyed your answer to C...!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what prevents me from staying on my current COS ( this would apply to anyone not on Cos 08 ) - and receive my bypass.
Then 15 years down the line when I hit 55 I make a case for age discrimination and say I am not ready to retire - Just like McIlroy and friends are doing now???
How is anything different from the way it is right now if I don not sign over to Cos 08??
Then 15 years down the line when I hit 55 I make a case for age discrimination and say I am not ready to retire - Just like McIlroy and friends are doing now???
How is anything different from the way it is right now if I don not sign over to Cos 08??
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also remember that the original CoS 08 involved a paycut for almost anyone who was already employed and a provision for reducing leave for the first few years of employment. The freighter was kept separate, RA went to 65 for all, there was no BPP and no choice.......in essence, plenty of reasons for the GC not to endorse the original CoS 08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the statements in the DFO update and IF my speculation above is correct:
Yokebearer: Nothing stops you staying on COS 99 and getting bypass other than your own potential desire to work past 55.
Loopdeloop: I don't want to turn into somekind of spruiker for the original COS 08 but I don't think any of your statements about COS 08 for currently employed officers are correct (except RA 65). If you are an AOA member you can view the original offer at:
HKAOA.org>Members home>General>archive news>2007 (at the bottom of the page)>item 16.
It will be instructive to see how the current offer stacks up against that original offer. According to the DFO update - which is the only info we have at this moment, removal of Capt. freighter pay /COS is an improvement. For A scale officers loss of that scale past 55 is a reduction from the original offer.
Sweep the leg: Original COS 08 offer had S/O BPP after 42 months as an S/O, see the above link - who knows what the current offer is?
Just received an email from the AOA saying the GC will take a few days to come up with recommendations (due clarifications and legal complexities) and not to sign anything for the moment.
Yokebearer: Nothing stops you staying on COS 99 and getting bypass other than your own potential desire to work past 55.
Loopdeloop: I don't want to turn into somekind of spruiker for the original COS 08 but I don't think any of your statements about COS 08 for currently employed officers are correct (except RA 65). If you are an AOA member you can view the original offer at:
HKAOA.org>Members home>General>archive news>2007 (at the bottom of the page)>item 16.
It will be instructive to see how the current offer stacks up against that original offer. According to the DFO update - which is the only info we have at this moment, removal of Capt. freighter pay /COS is an improvement. For A scale officers loss of that scale past 55 is a reduction from the original offer.
Sweep the leg: Original COS 08 offer had S/O BPP after 42 months as an S/O, see the above link - who knows what the current offer is?
Just received an email from the AOA saying the GC will take a few days to come up with recommendations (due clarifications and legal complexities) and not to sign anything for the moment.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: same place
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards bypass pay and S/O's am I missing something? As I understand it extendees are the only trigger for BPP and once they sign COS08 then technically there are no extendees and hence no future provision for BPP.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the misleading information on the CoS 08 reduced leave - this was an issue on the DEFO proposal that the AOA managed to get taken out during the CoS 08 negotiations.
However, I think all my other points are valid: Of the 10 pay points shown, 3 would not result in an immediate pay cut but all would result in a "career earnings" paycut and the longer it takes to achieve a command, the worse this aspect gets.
The freighter was to remain separate, although with a commitment to "meet with the AOA to review" - any optimism that this meeting would result with a favorable outcome for the pilots?
There was to be no command BPP for those who signed over.
I agree that there were some good items in CoS 08 but they weren't good enough to outweigh the bad. Crucially, time to command would have stretched significantly leaving non-captains the option of retiring at 55 with BPP (which doesn't compensate sufficiently for an extended delay as it stays on yr1 and you start captains pay on yr1) or you could sign over but would have to work to about 58 in order to be at the same position you would have been in at 55.
It's possible that the proposal coming out tomorrow will be an improved CoS 08 - I hope it is!
However, I think all my other points are valid: Of the 10 pay points shown, 3 would not result in an immediate pay cut but all would result in a "career earnings" paycut and the longer it takes to achieve a command, the worse this aspect gets.
The freighter was to remain separate, although with a commitment to "meet with the AOA to review" - any optimism that this meeting would result with a favorable outcome for the pilots?
There was to be no command BPP for those who signed over.
I agree that there were some good items in CoS 08 but they weren't good enough to outweigh the bad. Crucially, time to command would have stretched significantly leaving non-captains the option of retiring at 55 with BPP (which doesn't compensate sufficiently for an extended delay as it stays on yr1 and you start captains pay on yr1) or you could sign over but would have to work to about 58 in order to be at the same position you would have been in at 55.
It's possible that the proposal coming out tomorrow will be an improved CoS 08 - I hope it is!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 20 hindsight
Advisory,
it is easy to pick up a newspaper and look at share prices today and determine what should have been bought or sold a year ago - quite another to decide the same thing today looking forward a year.
In 2001 the company had an offer on the table - the negotiating team and the GC rejected the offer. Within a few days 49 guys were fired and the company imposed the very same offer (minus more maternity leave for female pilots, 1 for 1 positioning and higher factored HDP rates - if memory serves?) So in hindsight it is easy to determine that maybe if the GC had approved it and maybe if the membership had accepted it, we would have saved 49 jobs? But then what would have happened with all that built up angst? Would we have had another stoush at a later stage and again the company's big stick would have been wielded? Would the membership have accepted the deal at all?
In 2007, the GC were presented with a deal that would have led to a huge win for one demographic(representing around 15%) and a huge loss for two other demographics (representing well over 50%) and neutral for the rest. Unlike other company offers, this one was contingent on the GC actively endorsing it - so the GC was left with no choice but to reject it. How can you endorse a deal that hurts the majority of your members? It would be nice if the GC at the time could have just presented the deal neutrally, but that wasn't an option.
If we could go back and tell the negotiators of 2007/2001 what was about to happen, I am sure a different outcome would have occurred - but then if the company was privy to the same forward looking information, maybe the respective offers would change(for the worse?).
Everyone is an expert after the fact!
it is easy to pick up a newspaper and look at share prices today and determine what should have been bought or sold a year ago - quite another to decide the same thing today looking forward a year.
In 2001 the company had an offer on the table - the negotiating team and the GC rejected the offer. Within a few days 49 guys were fired and the company imposed the very same offer (minus more maternity leave for female pilots, 1 for 1 positioning and higher factored HDP rates - if memory serves?) So in hindsight it is easy to determine that maybe if the GC had approved it and maybe if the membership had accepted it, we would have saved 49 jobs? But then what would have happened with all that built up angst? Would we have had another stoush at a later stage and again the company's big stick would have been wielded? Would the membership have accepted the deal at all?
In 2007, the GC were presented with a deal that would have led to a huge win for one demographic(representing around 15%) and a huge loss for two other demographics (representing well over 50%) and neutral for the rest. Unlike other company offers, this one was contingent on the GC actively endorsing it - so the GC was left with no choice but to reject it. How can you endorse a deal that hurts the majority of your members? It would be nice if the GC at the time could have just presented the deal neutrally, but that wasn't an option.
If we could go back and tell the negotiators of 2007/2001 what was about to happen, I am sure a different outcome would have occurred - but then if the company was privy to the same forward looking information, maybe the respective offers would change(for the worse?).
Everyone is an expert after the fact!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Numero,
I always appreciate your reasoned posts. However, if as I suspect, you were on the committee at the time you may recall my written submission on why COS08 (original) should have been accepted. I did outline the impending sub prime crisis as a factor and argued that UFO would lead to UCN - which is what we now have or so it seems - the company needs this for efficiency reasons. Also the 3% salary, 2% HDP and upping of the increments due originally on 01/01/09 would have benefited the majority. I guess the disadvantage you refer to is the RA 65 aspect - which is now happening anyway (the fact that that was going to happen was in my submission too). I admit my view was very much in the minority at the time and if it had gone to the vote it would have been voted down. The pupose of me bringing it up was that we should learn from history. Hopefully any future pay deal will be much simpler if almost everyone is on the same conditions.
It seems my speculation in the first post was too optimistic as all that seems has happened is money is taken from the A-scale pot (by terminating it WEF 31/12/13) and distributed to bring freighters back into the fold. No mention in the GMA update even of any of those nice clauses I referred to in my first post (Scope and 35.3) althought NR alluded to scope in his missive.
I always appreciate your reasoned posts. However, if as I suspect, you were on the committee at the time you may recall my written submission on why COS08 (original) should have been accepted. I did outline the impending sub prime crisis as a factor and argued that UFO would lead to UCN - which is what we now have or so it seems - the company needs this for efficiency reasons. Also the 3% salary, 2% HDP and upping of the increments due originally on 01/01/09 would have benefited the majority. I guess the disadvantage you refer to is the RA 65 aspect - which is now happening anyway (the fact that that was going to happen was in my submission too). I admit my view was very much in the minority at the time and if it had gone to the vote it would have been voted down. The pupose of me bringing it up was that we should learn from history. Hopefully any future pay deal will be much simpler if almost everyone is on the same conditions.
It seems my speculation in the first post was too optimistic as all that seems has happened is money is taken from the A-scale pot (by terminating it WEF 31/12/13) and distributed to bring freighters back into the fold. No mention in the GMA update even of any of those nice clauses I referred to in my first post (Scope and 35.3) althought NR alluded to scope in his missive.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-What we have been after since 1994 - bringing the freighters back into the fold - a UCN scale (B scale) to go with the UFO scale. THIS IS THE BEST PART OF THE DEAL . This means if you are an PAX F/O or S/O it is as if CX just bought 20 Jets and they will be delivered shortly. If PAX and Freighters are no different (as per pre ‘94) the pool of available Commands / FO upgrades has just increased by the size of the freighter fleet. No more taking reduced conditions to go on the freighter or freighter bases - a win surely! Not only that, it should largely cancel out the delaying of commands due to RA 65 (once the GFC effect is out of the way).. Also no more DEC's
CX
[Edit]. Nothing against extenders, CX created this mess as a way to further divide and conquer.
Last edited by SMOC; 20th Apr 2009 at 13:49.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope some of you 'rocket scientists' who have spent the last year or so insulting and castigating the Captains in this airline will reflect on our present dilema. Please ask yourselves why they should give a rats arse about us now that they can happily sign onto 65. Perhaps a bit more maturity and discretion would have helped forge a common front. After reviewing some of the antagonistic comments some have made, it won't surprise me if 95% of the Captains sign over...mainly to spite the vitriol from some of you. What an own goal...
What an own goal...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: hk
Age: 67
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Watercheck
That is exactly what is going to happen. I was keen to leave at 55 and give the young guys a fair go. BUT over the last year, with all the ugly and hostile comments about me and my long standing AOA mates, I had a wake up call and realised that no gives a sh.t about you ( especially the younger crew) so I am now looking after myself and will take a base and 65... bye bye
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy old timers, don't mess with your blood pressure, don't forget the medical ,could be a challenge at your age !
You guys were always planning to stay on and nobody is blaming you for that.
You guys were always planning to stay on and nobody is blaming you for that.