Lifestyle Requests based on DOJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lifestyle Requests based on DOJ
As no one seems to be paying any attention to this issue on the AOA forums, thought maybe it should be brought up here.
Seems a few think we should try and re-write our history and do everything based on date of joining. OK, not everything, but award requests this way.
I personally think this is crap!!!!!!!!!!!!
People made decisions in the past based on the policy at the time. If someone delayed their command, they knew they would lose seniority. FO's joined with thousands of hours of experience. They were ahead of the SO cadets, full stop. Why should we now change the rules. Even if they were "wrong" and I don't think they were, we can't go back and change history.
Don't let this goofy vote slip through.Vote NO!!
Seems a few think we should try and re-write our history and do everything based on date of joining. OK, not everything, but award requests this way.
I personally think this is crap!!!!!!!!!!!!
People made decisions in the past based on the policy at the time. If someone delayed their command, they knew they would lose seniority. FO's joined with thousands of hours of experience. They were ahead of the SO cadets, full stop. Why should we now change the rules. Even if they were "wrong" and I don't think they were, we can't go back and change history.
Don't let this goofy vote slip through.Vote NO!!
I agree.
Those that willingly joined under that system should be prepared to live under it. Why should I now lose maybe 50 or even 100 numbers.
We are all now employed under a seniority number which I'd like to keep thanks very much.
Those that willingly joined under that system should be prepared to live under it. Why should I now lose maybe 50 or even 100 numbers.
We are all now employed under a seniority number which I'd like to keep thanks very much.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you guys are against fixing something which was unfair to certain individuals simply because you would lose the advantage given to you by virtue of joining in that period? You can hardly argue that the cadets who joined in that period must live with the unfair circumstances just because it would be inconvenient to others to fix.
No no and no.
They were the conditions that you chose to accept when you joined. Did you complain at the time? Did you come kicking and screaming? No you didn't.
When I joined I accepted B scale AND my seniority number based on my DOJ. They were the conditions I accepted and with which I joined under.
I suppose you want A scale too
oh but wait....... Correct me if I'm wrong ( and if I am I apologise ) but some of you guys would be on A scale wouldn't you?
Sorry but. NO
They were the conditions that you chose to accept when you joined. Did you complain at the time? Did you come kicking and screaming? No you didn't.
When I joined I accepted B scale AND my seniority number based on my DOJ. They were the conditions I accepted and with which I joined under.
I suppose you want A scale too
oh but wait....... Correct me if I'm wrong ( and if I am I apologise ) but some of you guys would be on A scale wouldn't you?
Sorry but. NO
Last edited by nitpicker330; 15th Sep 2009 at 07:58.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will be voting yes, it is the only fair system. Why should I not get requests because some commuter who joined one year ago gets all his W pattern requests? 
Why would a commuter that joined only 1 year ago get lifestyle requests ahead of you? Lifestyle requests are now done on DOJ since AUG roster,
so unless you are one of the cadets that has this beef about not getting DOJ seniority then it is actually in your interests to vote no.
so unless you are one of the cadets that has this beef about not getting DOJ seniority then it is actually in your interests to vote no.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand
I don't understand the vote. I thought our seniority was based on date of joining already.
The only think I can see coming from voting YES to this motion, is to put a stop (as Sqwak7700 notes) to commuters who are junior to me getting their W pattern requests, and leaving the non-"compact roster" guys like me to fill the gaps.
The only think I can see coming from voting YES to this motion, is to put a stop (as Sqwak7700 notes) to commuters who are junior to me getting their W pattern requests, and leaving the non-"compact roster" guys like me to fill the gaps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I suggest that if this vote doesn't affect you, then abstain from voting. Clearly some of you have no idea what you are talking about! Why we let those who are not affected vote on these issues really makes no sense.
If you joined post 1999, you will not be affected by this. Those that joined prior to that knew how the system worked. They made their decision to come to this airline or to stay with this airline based on how the system worked. We can't go back and change things because some feel hard done by now.
If someone delayed a command (which I did) and others moved ahead of me on the seniority list (which they did) I don't think it is fair to go back and readjust the list now.
If you don't understand the issue either find out what is going on or abstain.This vote is about trying to rewrite history because it doesn't suit us. For everyone who gains someone will loose.
If you joined post 1999, you will not be affected by this. Those that joined prior to that knew how the system worked. They made their decision to come to this airline or to stay with this airline based on how the system worked. We can't go back and change things because some feel hard done by now.
If someone delayed a command (which I did) and others moved ahead of me on the seniority list (which they did) I don't think it is fair to go back and readjust the list now.
If you don't understand the issue either find out what is going on or abstain.This vote is about trying to rewrite history because it doesn't suit us. For everyone who gains someone will loose.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They seem to forget that they got free training! The more experienced "others" have had to pay for it either in years of service somewhere else, in sweat and hard cash or a mixture of the two. This is a very flawed and blinkered argument. 
Broadband and sqwak::
if you joined after 1999 it WILL NOT EFFECT YOU.
Lifestyle rosters are now assigned in seniority. A commuter should not get his W ahead of you unless he is senior.
This Vote would only change that if you joined pre 99 and the commuter was a cadet that gained 50 or 100 seniority numbers IF the vote motion passes.
Now if you were in the AOA you'd have known that.
if you joined after 1999 it WILL NOT EFFECT YOU.
Lifestyle rosters are now assigned in seniority. A commuter should not get his W ahead of you unless he is senior.
This Vote would only change that if you joined pre 99 and the commuter was a cadet that gained 50 or 100 seniority numbers IF the vote motion passes.
Now if you were in the AOA you'd have known that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOA member
Yes, I am in the AOA nitpicker.
I joined the AOA before my first flight with CX, and I'm proud to say that I've been a continuous member in good standing since joining, which was before 1999 by the way.
btw, are you sure it's '99 or was it mid '98? (not being provocative, just trying to estasblish the facts)
I joined the AOA before my first flight with CX, and I'm proud to say that I've been a continuous member in good standing since joining, which was before 1999 by the way.
btw, are you sure it's '99 or was it mid '98? (not being provocative, just trying to estasblish the facts)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IT DOES AFFECT ME
Yes, if I wanted a W pattern then I would get it before another junior pilot requesting the same thing. That is not the point I am making.
But if I don't request W patterns then the company builds these for commuters in order of seniority and as someone else mentioned, the rest of the "non-w" crowd are left to pick up the remains of what is left behind.
So if I requested a LAX overnight but don't want Ws, I might not get it but someone who is junior to me and requests Ws might get one or two in a row, on the days that I requested.
So all of you seem to not understand. I am voting YES.
Yes, if I wanted a W pattern then I would get it before another junior pilot requesting the same thing. That is not the point I am making.
But if I don't request W patterns then the company builds these for commuters in order of seniority and as someone else mentioned, the rest of the "non-w" crowd are left to pick up the remains of what is left behind.
So if I requested a LAX overnight but don't want Ws, I might not get it but someone who is junior to me and requests Ws might get one or two in a row, on the days that I requested.
So all of you seem to not understand. I am voting YES.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near By
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOA Forum
There is a lot more to this Motion than meets the eye. Although it ONLY affects those with a DOJ prior to 01/01/1997 it is well worth taking a look over on the AOA forum, it may shed a little more light on the history of the issues.
Last edited by CXpletive; 16th Sep 2009 at 10:21.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sqwak
Are you one of the pilots that will increase his/her request seniority by voting “yes”? If so, I understand your position.
Correct me if I am wrong but if you do increase your request seniority by say 100 positions does that W pattern rule still in effect? If that is the case, the junior person that requested W patterns will receive your LAX anyway.
We should be voting on modifying the W pattern request system. If Sqwak requests his LAX and is senior to get it, then the junior W pattern request person will have to take the leftovers if any.
Seems the W pattern request system is Seniority from below.
For where I sit it seems if you are one of the cadets or first batch of Second Officers that did not get a seniority number as of DOJ will be voting yes and if you are one of the people that have a seniority number with DOJ before 1999 will be voting no.
As for the rest.................... you can either abstain or vote for one of the groups above? Who do you like more?
As to why the system is the way it is, I think it was based on your experience when you joined and CX thinking outside the box.
Are you one of the pilots that will increase his/her request seniority by voting “yes”? If so, I understand your position.
Correct me if I am wrong but if you do increase your request seniority by say 100 positions does that W pattern rule still in effect? If that is the case, the junior person that requested W patterns will receive your LAX anyway.
We should be voting on modifying the W pattern request system. If Sqwak requests his LAX and is senior to get it, then the junior W pattern request person will have to take the leftovers if any.
Seems the W pattern request system is Seniority from below.
For where I sit it seems if you are one of the cadets or first batch of Second Officers that did not get a seniority number as of DOJ will be voting yes and if you are one of the people that have a seniority number with DOJ before 1999 will be voting no.
As for the rest.................... you can either abstain or vote for one of the groups above? Who do you like more?
As to why the system is the way it is, I think it was based on your experience when you joined and CX thinking outside the box.