Lifestyle Requests based on DOJ
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we should vote to get rid of "W" patterns all together! 
They only serve to degrade the conditions that we work on, and make an absolute mockery of our FTL's. Before you know it we will all be doing some form of 'W"s whether you like it or not.
If you don't like Hong Kong, take a base.... If that doesn't work out (don't want the pay cut or can't get it) tough luck mate. Cathay is a Hong Kong company and you should not have come if you had no intention of living in HK. GO somewhere else.
Enough said !!
They only serve to degrade the conditions that we work on, and make an absolute mockery of our FTL's. Before you know it we will all be doing some form of 'W"s whether you like it or not.
If you don't like Hong Kong, take a base.... If that doesn't work out (don't want the pay cut or can't get it) tough luck mate. Cathay is a Hong Kong company and you should not have come if you had no intention of living in HK. GO somewhere else.
Enough said !!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you pass this motion then where do we stop? Do we give move ex ASL guys up the list by a couple of hundred places because they also worked on cx aircraft without a number for a couple of years before the "amalgamation".
This is moronic.
NO
This is moronic.
NO
Kurtis: that's a bit harsh mate, not all can get a base if they want one and RAS65 just made that a hell of a lot harder for nearly all the F/O's that quite rightly stayed on their old COS.
Most guys expected when they joined that at some point a base would be available and the goal posts moved yet again, so commuting has to be the only thing they can do.
Sqwak: am I missing something here? The roster is now done strictly on seniority. They DO NOT allocate lifestyle requests first and then other requests. That changed in August on the 777 and as far as I know on all fleets.
This motion wont effect anyone that joined after 1999, simple. The cadets that want their DOJ changed joined between 1992 and 1999 I understand.
So, the only people that would be affected would be the people that joined as direct entry between 1992 and 1999. They stand to lose perhaps 50 to 100 numbers of seniority for LIFESTYLE requests IF this motion passes.
Nothing else is proposed ( staff travel, promotion etc ) yet.
So, if you request a LAX pattern (as your number 1 request in Nov ) and another junior Pilot has a lifestyle request ( that scheduling would like to use that LAX pattern for) YOU will get the trip first and he WONT get a W.
That is the way it should work for your FIRST request, ( your second request cannot trump his first. )
Maybe I'm wrong? I do know that I complained about the very thing you are now complaining about and it was changed to favour seniority in Aug this year.
As proof I placed a 1st request for a 5 day pattern (that scheduling need to give to commuters as a W ) in August and I was given it ahead of other junior commuters that needed that flight to get their W.
The system works.
Voting yes to this motion wont change anything for you mate.
Most guys expected when they joined that at some point a base would be available and the goal posts moved yet again, so commuting has to be the only thing they can do.
Sqwak: am I missing something here? The roster is now done strictly on seniority. They DO NOT allocate lifestyle requests first and then other requests. That changed in August on the 777 and as far as I know on all fleets.
This motion wont effect anyone that joined after 1999, simple. The cadets that want their DOJ changed joined between 1992 and 1999 I understand.
So, the only people that would be affected would be the people that joined as direct entry between 1992 and 1999. They stand to lose perhaps 50 to 100 numbers of seniority for LIFESTYLE requests IF this motion passes.
Nothing else is proposed ( staff travel, promotion etc ) yet.
So, if you request a LAX pattern (as your number 1 request in Nov ) and another junior Pilot has a lifestyle request ( that scheduling would like to use that LAX pattern for) YOU will get the trip first and he WONT get a W.
That is the way it should work for your FIRST request, ( your second request cannot trump his first. )
Maybe I'm wrong? I do know that I complained about the very thing you are now complaining about and it was changed to favour seniority in Aug this year.
As proof I placed a 1st request for a 5 day pattern (that scheduling need to give to commuters as a W ) in August and I was given it ahead of other junior commuters that needed that flight to get their W.
The system works.
Voting yes to this motion wont change anything for you mate.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Aus
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the airbus, without any doubt, W pattern holders are assigned flying before others' roster requests are fulfilled. This results in W pattern holders getting requests out of seniority. It has been happen for years, and is becoming more apparent as the fleet's long haul flying disappears
I know for a fact it changed on the 777 after me and many others bitche'd to the JRC and the company schedulers directly.
Now maybe this is a trial? They do like to use the 777 as trial fleet!!
So, stay tuned. If not already it will happen on the other fleets.
And besides this has no bearing on Sqwak's decision as this new proposal by Capt AL won't effect him at all. ( or others that joined after 99 )
so I don't know what he is on about.
Now maybe this is a trial? They do like to use the 777 as trial fleet!!
So, stay tuned. If not already it will happen on the other fleets.
And besides this has no bearing on Sqwak's decision as this new proposal by Capt AL won't effect him at all. ( or others that joined after 99 )
so I don't know what he is on about.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it has changed Nitpicker, but maybe it has and I just can't notice it due to seniority above me.
I tell you what, all this doubt makes me think that I should talk to the Union and maybe they need to give us a presentation on the exact process that crew planners go through to comply with seniority based requests.
That should settle all this confusion.
For the meantime, I take it back, I'm not sure how I will vote.
I tell you what, all this doubt makes me think that I should talk to the Union and maybe they need to give us a presentation on the exact process that crew planners go through to comply with seniority based requests.
That should settle all this confusion.
For the meantime, I take it back, I'm not sure how I will vote.
Well that is strange because I know first hand they changed that on the 777.
The AOA even put out an email referring to the change.
Can someone official from the AOA comment please?
Anyway Sqwak it won't effect you in regards to this vote.
The AOA even put out an email referring to the change.
Can someone official from the AOA comment please?
Anyway Sqwak it won't effect you in regards to this vote.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will according to what humber says, Nitpicker.
That is exactly what I was worried about. That Ws get priority over other requests.
I won't base my vote on it, but I definitely think I need to dig deeper and see exactly what the policy is right now.
That is exactly what I was worried about. That Ws get priority over other requests.
I won't base my vote on it, but I definitely think I need to dig deeper and see exactly what the policy is right now.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure they would be happy to on the AOA website forum. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots can really be quite thick sometimes.
This motion has nothing, repeat nothing to do with the priority given to W patterns over the awarding of normal requests!!!!!!
If this passes it is simply because people really don't understand what they are voting for.
This vote is about who gets the first lifestyle request. If you joined post 1999 it does not affect you!!!!! Full Stop. Wake UP!!!!
This is an attempt to undo history. Everyone made their decisions based on how the system was at the time. If I wanted a senority based airline, I could have joined one. So could have any of the cadets, except most of them did not have the experience. Why should they now jump ahead. People made their decision on the rules at the time and knew the consequences.
If you think this is about giving normal pattern request preference over W patterns, WAKE UP!!!! IT IS NOT!!!
This motion has nothing, repeat nothing to do with the priority given to W patterns over the awarding of normal requests!!!!!!
If this passes it is simply because people really don't understand what they are voting for.
This vote is about who gets the first lifestyle request. If you joined post 1999 it does not affect you!!!!! Full Stop. Wake UP!!!!
This is an attempt to undo history. Everyone made their decisions based on how the system was at the time. If I wanted a senority based airline, I could have joined one. So could have any of the cadets, except most of them did not have the experience. Why should they now jump ahead. People made their decision on the rules at the time and knew the consequences.
If you think this is about giving normal pattern request preference over W patterns, WAKE UP!!!! IT IS NOT!!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sign on the dotted line and accept the rules....that is the only way to go....maybe we can go for early freighter commands on full B scale command salaries next!
dont even go there! if you want it that bad, you can suffer it!
dont even go there! if you want it that bad, you can suffer it!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, I'm outside the bracket of the affected group (Oct 1989 and Feb 1999), and so can view this matter from a somewhat subjective viewpoint.
The case the proposer put forward was quite convincing, but that was understandable considering he and his group are looking to better their lot. This in itself is quite admirable, as much as it is a great step forward to have ex-cadets on the AOA committee.
The motion and its supporters appear very organized. They have recently marshaled onto the starting line over 100 new AOA members, and there's no prize for guessing which way they are going to vote.
Yes, they will be going to vote to effectively turn the clock back a little, to rise up to what they see as their rightful position on the list that determines requests.
Unfortunately, the proposer glosses over the fact that were this to succeed, there would be a significant number of our other crew, who were direct entry joiners, who would slide back down the list.
To be fair, not many would disagree that how the company treated them with respect to the seniority list issue, was not particularly fair. However, that was the system at the time. Is it now correct to right an apparent wrong after such a system has been entrenched for 10-20 years?
The direct entry guys came with hours, experience, ratings, and they knew the importance of seniority. Having gained their place on the list, they would expect to have their requests granted in the same order, and not to have it changed at some later date. Many make long term plans for such things as basings on that basis.
By comparison, it may be that the company thought the ex-cadets bought little to the party. They paid for their license and training and gave them a job in a widebody with a world class airline and thought to only reward them with a place on the seniority list when they had put some time in. Was it right? - Who knows, but it was done, and remained so for some considerable time.
Apart from the first few ex-cadets who joined when policy was still evolving, those who joined without finding out what the score was, were naive. Those who knew what the score was but still came, effectively agreed with the system. Either way, by staying, they all gave their tacit acceptance of the situation
That status quo has worked effectively for the last 10-20years, so is now really the time to turn back the clock?
If it wasn't to the detriment of a similar number of direct entry crew who would lose out, then perhaps it could be, however, this motion seems to smack of "It's all about ME"
I think I would need a lot more of a convincing argument to vote for such a motion, that would disadvantage a large number of our colleagues. Which unless I have missed something, seems to be purely "robbing A to pay B", so on balance, I will vote against.
As an aside, I sincerely hope that if/when the motion fails, that all the recent ex-cadet joiners do not decide to suddenly leave the AOA. There will probably be other areas where you may hope to gain improvements, but hopefully at the expense of the company and not your work mates.
For those who are interested in more facts, and indeed the views of the proposer, the debate on the AOA forum has a lot more details and numbers of those advantaged/disadvantaged.
The case the proposer put forward was quite convincing, but that was understandable considering he and his group are looking to better their lot. This in itself is quite admirable, as much as it is a great step forward to have ex-cadets on the AOA committee.
The motion and its supporters appear very organized. They have recently marshaled onto the starting line over 100 new AOA members, and there's no prize for guessing which way they are going to vote.
Yes, they will be going to vote to effectively turn the clock back a little, to rise up to what they see as their rightful position on the list that determines requests.
Unfortunately, the proposer glosses over the fact that were this to succeed, there would be a significant number of our other crew, who were direct entry joiners, who would slide back down the list.
To be fair, not many would disagree that how the company treated them with respect to the seniority list issue, was not particularly fair. However, that was the system at the time. Is it now correct to right an apparent wrong after such a system has been entrenched for 10-20 years?
The direct entry guys came with hours, experience, ratings, and they knew the importance of seniority. Having gained their place on the list, they would expect to have their requests granted in the same order, and not to have it changed at some later date. Many make long term plans for such things as basings on that basis.
By comparison, it may be that the company thought the ex-cadets bought little to the party. They paid for their license and training and gave them a job in a widebody with a world class airline and thought to only reward them with a place on the seniority list when they had put some time in. Was it right? - Who knows, but it was done, and remained so for some considerable time.
Apart from the first few ex-cadets who joined when policy was still evolving, those who joined without finding out what the score was, were naive. Those who knew what the score was but still came, effectively agreed with the system. Either way, by staying, they all gave their tacit acceptance of the situation
That status quo has worked effectively for the last 10-20years, so is now really the time to turn back the clock?
If it wasn't to the detriment of a similar number of direct entry crew who would lose out, then perhaps it could be, however, this motion seems to smack of "It's all about ME"
I think I would need a lot more of a convincing argument to vote for such a motion, that would disadvantage a large number of our colleagues. Which unless I have missed something, seems to be purely "robbing A to pay B", so on balance, I will vote against.
As an aside, I sincerely hope that if/when the motion fails, that all the recent ex-cadet joiners do not decide to suddenly leave the AOA. There will probably be other areas where you may hope to gain improvements, but hopefully at the expense of the company and not your work mates.
For those who are interested in more facts, and indeed the views of the proposer, the debate on the AOA forum has a lot more details and numbers of those advantaged/disadvantaged.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm affected
I have done some research on this, and have come to an informed decision to vote for what is right, rather than vote for "ME ME ME".
Like some of the committee members posting on the AOA website, I will be affected. And, like those same committee members, I am willing to sacrifice a few numbers to move to a fully seniority driven system, as per AOA and IFALPA policy, philosophy & principles.
I will vote YES.
To anyone that has ever complained about other groups (eg A scale, C & T, quitters, etc etc) voting or acting with a self-centred mind set, this is the opportunity to put your vote where your mouth is.
Like some of the committee members posting on the AOA website, I will be affected. And, like those same committee members, I am willing to sacrifice a few numbers to move to a fully seniority driven system, as per AOA and IFALPA policy, philosophy & principles.
I will vote YES.
To anyone that has ever complained about other groups (eg A scale, C & T, quitters, etc etc) voting or acting with a self-centred mind set, this is the opportunity to put your vote where your mouth is.
Last edited by broadband circuit; 21st Sep 2009 at 03:06. Reason: edditted fur speling end grammur
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So am I!
broadband circuit
I am also affected and totally disagree with your "noble" argument. The AOA "normally" fights for the benefit of its members not to eat its own. This was supposedly "sorted" in negotiations with the company back in 1997 when the Aircrew Seniority List was modified for past mistakes made and hailed a win.
Now we want to go back again and "shaft" one group of pilots because another group feel they have been "shafted". The first group accepted the terms of their employment the latter now want to CHANGE theirs, not at the detriment to the COMPANY, but to their colleagues. This group seems to forget they received a lot of benefit from joining be it financial / experience or a licence.
The argument put froward by the proposer is full of holes, full of fine words BUT no substance nor FACTS. There are far more important things for the AOA to be talking to the company about, they will be laughing at the distractions this motion is causing and the "sores" it is opening up again. The Industry Standard of the ASL is continually spouted in this motion, which the proposer now wants changed to a NON-INDUSTRY standard of the MRL, master redundancy list.
As for your comment on self-centred voting, well what do you think this motion is? Do we have a "committee" of the people, for the people and by the people?
I am also affected and totally disagree with your "noble" argument. The AOA "normally" fights for the benefit of its members not to eat its own. This was supposedly "sorted" in negotiations with the company back in 1997 when the Aircrew Seniority List was modified for past mistakes made and hailed a win.
Now we want to go back again and "shaft" one group of pilots because another group feel they have been "shafted". The first group accepted the terms of their employment the latter now want to CHANGE theirs, not at the detriment to the COMPANY, but to their colleagues. This group seems to forget they received a lot of benefit from joining be it financial / experience or a licence.
The argument put froward by the proposer is full of holes, full of fine words BUT no substance nor FACTS. There are far more important things for the AOA to be talking to the company about, they will be laughing at the distractions this motion is causing and the "sores" it is opening up again. The Industry Standard of the ASL is continually spouted in this motion, which the proposer now wants changed to a NON-INDUSTRY standard of the MRL, master redundancy list.
As for your comment on self-centred voting, well what do you think this motion is? Do we have a "committee" of the people, for the people and by the people?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very hard to understand how anyone can believe this is correcting an injustice.
Let's try to put this into terms which have relevance today.
Today you join this airline with a seniority number based on date of joining. That is the way it works. People come knowing that is the deal.
What if next week IFALPA decided that the present system doesn't make sense? The "new way" is to have people join the seniority list at age 30. This way, pilots will be able to get more varied flying experience before moving into the big jets and this will lead to a safer cockpit. (Whatever the argument is, it is hypothetical, but for some reason this is how it will be done.) So after Jan 2010, everyone effectively joins the list when they are 30, so we end up with a list that is age driven.
Off we go for 10 years and then someone who joined the airline at age 44 under the date of joining system, decides he is tired off not getting his trip requests because some guy younger than him is more senior. If the policy had been the way it is "today" he would be senior.
So would you still be in favor of turning back the clock and righting this "injustice"?
The policy that was in force at the time can hardly be seen as an injustice to be righted. If it wasn't just, why did people join or stay. If someone delayed a command course, they knew the consequences. Why should they gain back their senority (if only for requests) that they knowingly gave up.
It was not a date of joining seniority list airline at the time and we all knew it. For someone who was not there to think they are righting an injustice, I quite frankly think don't think you are thinking this through. Even the proposer of the motion has a hard time coming up with coherent arguments to support this motion and instead is putting this to the membership to let them decide. I really haven't seen a valid argument for this motion.
Let's try to put this into terms which have relevance today.
Today you join this airline with a seniority number based on date of joining. That is the way it works. People come knowing that is the deal.
What if next week IFALPA decided that the present system doesn't make sense? The "new way" is to have people join the seniority list at age 30. This way, pilots will be able to get more varied flying experience before moving into the big jets and this will lead to a safer cockpit. (Whatever the argument is, it is hypothetical, but for some reason this is how it will be done.) So after Jan 2010, everyone effectively joins the list when they are 30, so we end up with a list that is age driven.
Off we go for 10 years and then someone who joined the airline at age 44 under the date of joining system, decides he is tired off not getting his trip requests because some guy younger than him is more senior. If the policy had been the way it is "today" he would be senior.
So would you still be in favor of turning back the clock and righting this "injustice"?
The policy that was in force at the time can hardly be seen as an injustice to be righted. If it wasn't just, why did people join or stay. If someone delayed a command course, they knew the consequences. Why should they gain back their senority (if only for requests) that they knowingly gave up.
It was not a date of joining seniority list airline at the time and we all knew it. For someone who was not there to think they are righting an injustice, I quite frankly think don't think you are thinking this through. Even the proposer of the motion has a hard time coming up with coherent arguments to support this motion and instead is putting this to the membership to let them decide. I really haven't seen a valid argument for this motion.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposer AL admits that some of the other pilots will be disadvantaged.
He mitigates this disadvantage by saying that if his motion is succesful, and the company agrees, the nett loss to the disadvantaged individual will be minimal by virtue of the following reasoning: A newly disadvantaged pilot would only lose out, if the ex-cadet who is now above him, is on the same fleet, and bidding for the same flight/basing.
Surely such reasoning should really be turned around, to assess what benefit will the ex-cadet gain. By AL's logic, he would only gain, if he was now above a guy who joined as a DEFO, who was on the same fleet, who was bidding for the same flight/basing.
So in reality, if the ex-cadets gain is so minimal, why can AL not look at the big picture and see he is wasting the AOA's time with this petty motion, but more so risking alienating one of the two sizeable groups of pilots who will be affected by this wether it succeeds or not.
For him to say its a matter of principle, is all well and good, but for such a small gain at the expense of many long standing members, is a rather blinkered view, and so very typical of Hong Kong and its populace.
He mitigates this disadvantage by saying that if his motion is succesful, and the company agrees, the nett loss to the disadvantaged individual will be minimal by virtue of the following reasoning: A newly disadvantaged pilot would only lose out, if the ex-cadet who is now above him, is on the same fleet, and bidding for the same flight/basing.
Surely such reasoning should really be turned around, to assess what benefit will the ex-cadet gain. By AL's logic, he would only gain, if he was now above a guy who joined as a DEFO, who was on the same fleet, who was bidding for the same flight/basing.
So in reality, if the ex-cadets gain is so minimal, why can AL not look at the big picture and see he is wasting the AOA's time with this petty motion, but more so risking alienating one of the two sizeable groups of pilots who will be affected by this wether it succeeds or not.
For him to say its a matter of principle, is all well and good, but for such a small gain at the expense of many long standing members, is a rather blinkered view, and so very typical of Hong Kong and its populace.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the General Committee endeavors to portray a neutral standing with respect the motion, then why are some General Committee members airing personal views that are clearly in favor of the motion passing. This is unethical and is adding a bias to the argument.