On the issue of unpaid leave.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the issue of unpaid leave.
By now it's probably obvious that CoS08 is better for captains and over 50 years old FOs and that CoS99 is better for SOs and younger FOs.
I'm an FO and CoS99 is the way to go for me.
On the issue of taking unpaid leave I can't help but having to raise my eyebrows.
Why on earth does the company want to push through a retirement age of 65 right NOW when they are overstaffed? They state that training is the issue at play.
So then my question is: why aren't there enough younger trainers?
Whereas two weeks ago I would probably have had no problem with giving up 3 weeks salary because I don't want to see anyone be made redundant and I understand there's a crisis, now I am reluctant.
First reason is that the request is coupled with signing a new contract.
If you're an FO or SO and are willing to sign a new contract, you don't have to take your 3 weeks unpaid leave. So if you're willing to give up a lot of money in the future, THEY DON'T NEED TO SAVE MONEY NOW?
Second is exactly the reason given: insufficient training capacity.
I can understand that in the rapid growth period there weren't enough trainers. Now there's a surplus in staff and there are still not enough trainers? Where are the younger trainers? Why are there not enough younger trainers? Is it because training is only a good deal for A scalers? Is it because there's an attitude that younger people can't provide proper training to others?
In any case, this shouldn't have anything to do with having to raise retirement age by ten years exactly NOW.
Now I am asked to give up my salary for one of these reasons (or a combination):
A. insufficient planning towards future training
B. attitude of the older trainers that young people can't provide training
C. friends of management approach age 55 retirement and this has to go through fast
D. some court is about to rule that Cathay can't maintain it's retirement age at 55 anymore, in which case they now quickly want everyone to voluntarily agree to switch.
Honestly, I don't see the point of wanting to push through a new contract now and coupling it with the need to take unpaid leave.
In his message, NR erased all the warming up that management did in the past few months towards taking unpaid leave.
I might be missing some points here, but I have a lot of question marks.
I need to be convinced of the need for unpaid leave before I sign up to it. At the moment, I'm not convinced.
I'm an FO and CoS99 is the way to go for me.
On the issue of taking unpaid leave I can't help but having to raise my eyebrows.
Why on earth does the company want to push through a retirement age of 65 right NOW when they are overstaffed? They state that training is the issue at play.
So then my question is: why aren't there enough younger trainers?
Whereas two weeks ago I would probably have had no problem with giving up 3 weeks salary because I don't want to see anyone be made redundant and I understand there's a crisis, now I am reluctant.
First reason is that the request is coupled with signing a new contract.
If you're an FO or SO and are willing to sign a new contract, you don't have to take your 3 weeks unpaid leave. So if you're willing to give up a lot of money in the future, THEY DON'T NEED TO SAVE MONEY NOW?
Second is exactly the reason given: insufficient training capacity.
I can understand that in the rapid growth period there weren't enough trainers. Now there's a surplus in staff and there are still not enough trainers? Where are the younger trainers? Why are there not enough younger trainers? Is it because training is only a good deal for A scalers? Is it because there's an attitude that younger people can't provide proper training to others?
In any case, this shouldn't have anything to do with having to raise retirement age by ten years exactly NOW.
Now I am asked to give up my salary for one of these reasons (or a combination):
A. insufficient planning towards future training
B. attitude of the older trainers that young people can't provide training
C. friends of management approach age 55 retirement and this has to go through fast
D. some court is about to rule that Cathay can't maintain it's retirement age at 55 anymore, in which case they now quickly want everyone to voluntarily agree to switch.
Honestly, I don't see the point of wanting to push through a new contract now and coupling it with the need to take unpaid leave.
In his message, NR erased all the warming up that management did in the past few months towards taking unpaid leave.
I might be missing some points here, but I have a lot of question marks.
I need to be convinced of the need for unpaid leave before I sign up to it. At the moment, I'm not convinced.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"friends of management approach age 55 retirement and this has to go through fast"
is it too cynical to suggest that senior trainers dont get replaced by younger ones so that they are extended on their current terms? jobs for the boys!
is it too cynical to suggest that senior trainers dont get replaced by younger ones so that they are extended on their current terms? jobs for the boys!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is it too cynical to suggest that senior trainers dont get replaced by younger ones so that they are extended on their current terms? jobs for the boys!
You obviously did not read the GMA's letter!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MARS
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As in many other airlines, the 3rd floor (at CX) is nothing else than an OLD BOYS CLUB...
Most present extendees (around 120 of them), could only extend past 55, provided they agreed to do training..
That training requirement has to be fulfilled until end of 2010, after which I suspect a lot of these "trainers" (some of them who has NEVER done training prior to their extensions!!) - will resign from training and go back to being normal line captains until they retire eventually..assuming off course they sign to CoS08 (a deal from their GMA mate they simply cannot refuse!)..
When this recession is over, CX will be needing a lot of new trainers, coming from present FO and perhaps SO ranks, but with the majority remaining on Cos99 RA55, the company will once again face a huge lack of trainers (growth limiting) because most will only be able to retire at 55..
Vicious circle
and another CLEAR MANIFESTATION of amateur management, and therefore many future CoS's to be implemented, with RA65 in order to satisfy training and growth..
If you're an SO of FO..DON'T sign anything, a better deal WILL be forthcoming..watch this space!!
Most present extendees (around 120 of them), could only extend past 55, provided they agreed to do training..
That training requirement has to be fulfilled until end of 2010, after which I suspect a lot of these "trainers" (some of them who has NEVER done training prior to their extensions!!) - will resign from training and go back to being normal line captains until they retire eventually..assuming off course they sign to CoS08 (a deal from their GMA mate they simply cannot refuse!)..
When this recession is over, CX will be needing a lot of new trainers, coming from present FO and perhaps SO ranks, but with the majority remaining on Cos99 RA55, the company will once again face a huge lack of trainers (growth limiting) because most will only be able to retire at 55..
Vicious circle
and another CLEAR MANIFESTATION of amateur management, and therefore many future CoS's to be implemented, with RA65 in order to satisfy training and growth..If you're an SO of FO..DON'T sign anything, a better deal WILL be forthcoming..watch this space!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Age: 61
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree why wrap SLS with a new contract to RA65, just doesn't add up to me. If we need to save money and preserve the current force then fine SLS is the way to go. But by allowing those who sign on for COS08 the option to drop SLS blows the need for cost savings out of the window
For some COS08 is the right option, but my gut feeling is that unless you are approaching 50 staying with COS99, although a risk, is the way to go
For some COS08 is the right option, but my gut feeling is that unless you are approaching 50 staying with COS99, although a risk, is the way to go
