Should we Name & Shame G Day Workers?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STP,
I hope you are not implying that the CX pilot group was unified during the 49er debacle. They may have appeared so before the illegal firings but certainly not after they occurred. Any pilot group worth its salt would have shut the airline down, including the two you referenced in Oz.
I honestly don't think the Swires are as foolhardy as Sir Peter Abeles. They have too much to lose. The Ansett nightmare is really unprecedented in the industry. I doubt that could happen again unless we were to play our cards as poorly as the AFAP leadership did, specifically Capt McCarthy. Unfortunately, we have many of these 89er pilots in our ranks who think industrial relations can only be won by the employer. I suspect their presence did not help in 2001.
Steve, if you are who I think you are, I really appreciate your hard work and pragmatic approach. There is certainly a place for that, but there is also a place for more of a hard line approach when it can be backed up. I think PW and his teams played this quite well in the last round. We need to be building on this success right now. I am not sure we are doing that, but I am not on the inside anymore so I am not privy to all the goings on and information.
I hope you are not implying that the CX pilot group was unified during the 49er debacle. They may have appeared so before the illegal firings but certainly not after they occurred. Any pilot group worth its salt would have shut the airline down, including the two you referenced in Oz.
I honestly don't think the Swires are as foolhardy as Sir Peter Abeles. They have too much to lose. The Ansett nightmare is really unprecedented in the industry. I doubt that could happen again unless we were to play our cards as poorly as the AFAP leadership did, specifically Capt McCarthy. Unfortunately, we have many of these 89er pilots in our ranks who think industrial relations can only be won by the employer. I suspect their presence did not help in 2001.
Steve, if you are who I think you are, I really appreciate your hard work and pragmatic approach. There is certainly a place for that, but there is also a place for more of a hard line approach when it can be backed up. I think PW and his teams played this quite well in the last round. We need to be building on this success right now. I am not sure we are doing that, but I am not on the inside anymore so I am not privy to all the goings on and information.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is broadband, is that when you take such a narrow view of seniority you end up with a system where those in the bottom 2/3 rds get all the crap. By definition these are usually the younger pilots and therefore those with children that they would actually like to spend time with and watch grow up.
I'm really looking forward to dribbling down my chin in my 60s knowing that I can bid for weekends and school holidays when my kids won't have a clue who I am!
The whole industry needs a rational discussion on the seniority system. It has its merits but there needs to be a recognition that it hinders us just as much as it protects us. Those golden handcuffs and the idea of starting at the bottom again prevents us from easily moving companies. Management know this and take full advantage.
Standing by to be flamed
I'm really looking forward to dribbling down my chin in my 60s knowing that I can bid for weekends and school holidays when my kids won't have a clue who I am!
The whole industry needs a rational discussion on the seniority system. It has its merits but there needs to be a recognition that it hinders us just as much as it protects us. Those golden handcuffs and the idea of starting at the bottom again prevents us from easily moving companies. Management know this and take full advantage.
Standing by to be flamed
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
joebanana.....et al....I read, a long time ago in my distant past before seniority became such a big part of my life, an article by a Captain whose name escapes me. His view on seniority was that it should be basically Industry wide, in that you accrued points based on experience and some other factors I can't now remember. This would allow pilots to move around for bettering terms and conditions without starting at the bottom. His view was that this would drive UP our T & Cs as company's would be forced to pay to retain the experience levels and pilots would be free to move to a better job whether it be for the money or closer to home, further from home, whatever reasons we might like to move for.
Perhaps someone else remembers the article or the Captain who wrote it? I seem to recall he was Scandanavian or perhaps with KLM? In any event, it was an interesting take on the issue.
Perhaps someone else remembers the article or the Captain who wrote it? I seem to recall he was Scandanavian or perhaps with KLM? In any event, it was an interesting take on the issue.
Broadband,
Thanks for your comments. In several airlines around the world -EK to name but one - they have a rotating bidding system for flights, days off etc. It works very well as it is fair to all. That is, you work your way up the ladder month after month, and when you get to #2 or #1 slot, you get basically what you ask for, keeping in mind that in a month or two after that, you will be down the bottom again.
The original question I asked was if this had been proposed to KA or CX Rostering Departments before.
Thanks for your comments. In several airlines around the world -EK to name but one - they have a rotating bidding system for flights, days off etc. It works very well as it is fair to all. That is, you work your way up the ladder month after month, and when you get to #2 or #1 slot, you get basically what you ask for, keeping in mind that in a month or two after that, you will be down the bottom again.
The original question I asked was if this had been proposed to KA or CX Rostering Departments before.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist
No of course not. However, in a workforce where membership of a representative body is optional then there can never be unity in its truest sense. Bearing that in mind, you argue against your own position considering that you said earlier, when speaking of one of the possible ramifications of a “name and shame” campaign:
This, of course, would be a significant impediment to any pilot body worth its salt closing down an airline.
P.S. The definition of a pragmatist? An idealist with experience.
I hope you are not implying that the CX pilot group was unified during the 49er debacle.
Some might argue that overall membership numbers would be affected. So be it
P.S. The definition of a pragmatist? An idealist with experience.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really STP. G day workers would show up en mass if we ever tried to shut the airline down. I don't think that's debateable. So yes, you might lose some "members", but you are not really losing anything other than their subs.
Do you disagree? I am actually having a hard time understanding your post.
PS - That's not the definition of a pragmatist. When conciliation is mislabeled as pragmatism, I'm against it. As an example, I think the "negotiated" (but rejected) housing agreement from over a year ago was concillitory, not pragmatic.
Do you disagree? I am actually having a hard time understanding your post.
PS - That's not the definition of a pragmatist. When conciliation is mislabeled as pragmatism, I'm against it. As an example, I think the "negotiated" (but rejected) housing agreement from over a year ago was concillitory, not pragmatic.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist
So all this big talk about beating management, were you actually here 1999-2001? Did you pay your 5% subscriptions?
Are we are really going to go into battle with Swire, in Hong Kong, with the Qantas / AA debacles? I think you need to join the real world and not your Unionist Idealistic one.
So all this big talk about beating management, were you actually here 1999-2001? Did you pay your 5% subscriptions?
Are we are really going to go into battle with Swire, in Hong Kong, with the Qantas / AA debacles? I think you need to join the real world and not your Unionist Idealistic one.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman,
I am not advocating any of what you wrote. I am saying we can and should be a stronger pilot group with more leverage at the negotiating table. Pilots whom sound like you retreat before they are ever in a position to challenge or be challenged. It is pathetically weak. AA and QF situations have nothing in common with ours. Please explain the correlations if there are any.
I was not here in 1999-2001, but I know for a fact I would have handled myself a hell of a lot better than the roll over piece of ****e you guys pulled. It is called having a spine. You can all attack me and say you were not here, you would have done the same, and whatever other rationalizations make you feel better. However, you don't know what I would have done. I would have had to go on a long-term leave for stress because I would not have been suitable to fly - for real. Perhaps some of you did that, but not anywhere near enough.
Instead of berate and dismiss me as some snot-nosed newbie, ask yourself what JW and the other 49ers expected from you. I'm thinking they would have been a lot more excited about support like mine than what they got from guys like you.
OK, time to cover your guilty consciences. Dish out the big internet thrashing... I can take it. Can you?
I am not advocating any of what you wrote. I am saying we can and should be a stronger pilot group with more leverage at the negotiating table. Pilots whom sound like you retreat before they are ever in a position to challenge or be challenged. It is pathetically weak. AA and QF situations have nothing in common with ours. Please explain the correlations if there are any.
I was not here in 1999-2001, but I know for a fact I would have handled myself a hell of a lot better than the roll over piece of ****e you guys pulled. It is called having a spine. You can all attack me and say you were not here, you would have done the same, and whatever other rationalizations make you feel better. However, you don't know what I would have done. I would have had to go on a long-term leave for stress because I would not have been suitable to fly - for real. Perhaps some of you did that, but not anywhere near enough.
Instead of berate and dismiss me as some snot-nosed newbie, ask yourself what JW and the other 49ers expected from you. I'm thinking they would have been a lot more excited about support like mine than what they got from guys like you.
OK, time to cover your guilty consciences. Dish out the big internet thrashing... I can take it. Can you?
Perhaps you should also name and shame:
The individuals who took quick commands when the 49er thing was happening thus helping the company to screw them;
The line trainers and checkers who trained and checked these people to line
While all insundry where condemning anyone who took a job offer from the street.
But wait, hang on, that will be about 90 percent of us, so we might just quietly forget about that little indisgression..............................
The individuals who took quick commands when the 49er thing was happening thus helping the company to screw them;
The line trainers and checkers who trained and checked these people to line
While all insundry where condemning anyone who took a job offer from the street.
But wait, hang on, that will be about 90 percent of us, so we might just quietly forget about that little indisgression..............................
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist
Very easy for you to say "we" had no spine and you would have been a "leader" from the front. You have NO concept of what it was like here at that time and you can only pontificate about how great you would have been. One of the reasons "we" did NOT go on strike was that the company had 50+ A/C and crews, from other airlines, all lined up to take over if we had gone out. The AOA leadership decided against that action much to the annoyance of management. The 49ers needed all the immediate support that we could give them at that truly awful time. I fear with all your bravado we might have had to support you as well, if you had been here.
As for those comments, they say it all about you really, you talk the talk but would you really walk the walk, doubt it very much.
I presume you joined KNOWING the industrial history of the company. So let us be really clear about how principled you are, when did you join and on what fleet?
Very easy for you to say "we" had no spine and you would have been a "leader" from the front. You have NO concept of what it was like here at that time and you can only pontificate about how great you would have been. One of the reasons "we" did NOT go on strike was that the company had 50+ A/C and crews, from other airlines, all lined up to take over if we had gone out. The AOA leadership decided against that action much to the annoyance of management. The 49ers needed all the immediate support that we could give them at that truly awful time. I fear with all your bravado we might have had to support you as well, if you had been here.
Instead of berate and dismiss me as some snot-nosed newbie, ask yourself what JW and the other 49ers expected from you. I'm thinking they would have been a lot more excited about support like mine than what they got from guys like you.
I presume you joined KNOWING the industrial history of the company. So let us be really clear about how principled you are, when did you join and on what fleet?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point illusion, although the language police might be on your doorstep shortly!
There's no shame in working a G day and I don't know why anyone thinks there is. This job is full of choices and for each one you take, someone else may suffer or benefit a little:
a. If you request Christmas off, someone else who may be more in need might not get it off.
b. If you apply for a joker it may mess with someone else's potential roster in order to accommodate it.
c. If you applied for a freighter command then someone more senior may not have been offered a command as quickly, but may benefit from better rosters and more pay!
d. If you go sick for a sniffle then someone else may have to work a weekend of requested G's and miss his wife's birthday (they can extend you into a G on a whim if they wish)
e. If you opt for super-compact rosters then someone less senior may not get them and someone more senior may not get the trip they want.
f. If you work a G then someone on reserve may not get called out into overtime (but may be happier to have the day at home with their children anyway)
We all draw our own line in the sand. For many it lies just in front of working a G, for some it lies just behind. I've not worked a G for over 10 years but I wouldn't hesitate if my family were away from home for a few months visiting sick relatives and it meant I could spend a few more days with them.
The arrogance of those telling me not to work G's almost makes me want to offer my services next time I'm off, except that I value my time off more than I value the point I'm trying to make (which I fear would be lost anyway!)
Until such a time as we vote in CC these are all individual choices and should be treated as such.
There's no shame in working a G day and I don't know why anyone thinks there is. This job is full of choices and for each one you take, someone else may suffer or benefit a little:
a. If you request Christmas off, someone else who may be more in need might not get it off.
b. If you apply for a joker it may mess with someone else's potential roster in order to accommodate it.
c. If you applied for a freighter command then someone more senior may not have been offered a command as quickly, but may benefit from better rosters and more pay!
d. If you go sick for a sniffle then someone else may have to work a weekend of requested G's and miss his wife's birthday (they can extend you into a G on a whim if they wish)
e. If you opt for super-compact rosters then someone less senior may not get them and someone more senior may not get the trip they want.
f. If you work a G then someone on reserve may not get called out into overtime (but may be happier to have the day at home with their children anyway)
We all draw our own line in the sand. For many it lies just in front of working a G, for some it lies just behind. I've not worked a G for over 10 years but I wouldn't hesitate if my family were away from home for a few months visiting sick relatives and it meant I could spend a few more days with them.
The arrogance of those telling me not to work G's almost makes me want to offer my services next time I'm off, except that I value my time off more than I value the point I'm trying to make (which I fear would be lost anyway!)
Until such a time as we vote in CC these are all individual choices and should be treated as such.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loop, is your whole reply complete sarcasm or not? Hard to tell....no point AGAIN explaining why G day workers cost all of us (including themselves) so much pay, but just in case:
(You said, then I SAY IN CAPS):
a. If you request Christmas off, someone else who may be more in need might not get it off.
THAT IS RIGHT, BUT THERE IS A FAIR SYSTEM YEAR AFTER YEAR, BASED ON SENIORITY AND OTHER STUFF, THAT WORKS FOR ALMOST EVERYONE, AND ALMOST EVERYONE BENEFITS FAIRLY AND NOBODY IS REPEATEDLY DISADVANTAGED
b. If you apply for a joker it may mess with someone else's potential roster in order to accommodate it.
THAT IS RIGHT, BUT THERE IS A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THIS THAT WORKS FOR ALMOST EVERYONE AND ALMOST EVERYONE BENEFITS FAIRLY AND NOBODY IS REPEATEDLY DISADVANTAGED
c. If you applied for a freighter command then someone more senior may not have been offered a command as quickly, but may benefit from better rosters and more pay!
THAT IS NOT RIGHT AND THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY THIS CRAZY FREIGHTER COMMAND NONSENSE IF FINALLY STOPPED AND IT CANNOT BE POSSIBLE THAT THIS MUST ALL BE EXPLAINED YET AGAIN
d. If you go sick for a sniffle then someone else may have to work a weekend of requested G's and miss his wife's birthday (they can extend you into a G on a whim if they wish)
THAT IS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE SICK PEOPLE SHOULD BE REPLACED BY THOSE ON RESERVE, NOT THOSE ON G DAYS. THOSE ON G DAYS CANNOT BE CONTACTED UNLESS THEY ANSWER THEIR PHONE AND DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE TO WORK EVEN IF THEY DO ANSWER THEIR PHONE. AS FOR EXTENSIONS INTO G DAYS, THAT'S RIGHT: NO ROSTERING SYSTEM IS FLAWLESS ENOUGH TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT
e. If you opt for super-compact rosters then someone less senior may not get them and someone more senior may not get the trip they want.
THAT'S RIGHT, BUT AS A GROUP THE AOA AGREED TO THIS, AND IT IS NOT FAIR BUT THAT IS DEMOCRACY SOMETIMES
f. If you work a G then someone on reserve may not get called out into overtime (but may be happier to have the day at home with their children anyway)
THAT'S RIGHT, BUT THE ONLY REASON THEY CALL PEOPLE ON G DAYS IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW ALMOST EXACTLY HOW MANY R DAY PEOPLE THEY WILL NEED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHICH OPTION IS MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER. EVERYONE WOULD RATHER BE DOING SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEM HAPPIER THAN GOING TO WORK, BUT WHEN YOU ARE ROSTERED FOR AN R DAY, TOO BAD, AS YOU ARE THE ONE ON CALL.
Have a nice G day!
P.S. And try not to rip off the R guy's overtime, please? Then he won't want to rip you off next month. It's just so plain and simple...
(You said, then I SAY IN CAPS):
a. If you request Christmas off, someone else who may be more in need might not get it off.
THAT IS RIGHT, BUT THERE IS A FAIR SYSTEM YEAR AFTER YEAR, BASED ON SENIORITY AND OTHER STUFF, THAT WORKS FOR ALMOST EVERYONE, AND ALMOST EVERYONE BENEFITS FAIRLY AND NOBODY IS REPEATEDLY DISADVANTAGED
b. If you apply for a joker it may mess with someone else's potential roster in order to accommodate it.
THAT IS RIGHT, BUT THERE IS A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THIS THAT WORKS FOR ALMOST EVERYONE AND ALMOST EVERYONE BENEFITS FAIRLY AND NOBODY IS REPEATEDLY DISADVANTAGED
c. If you applied for a freighter command then someone more senior may not have been offered a command as quickly, but may benefit from better rosters and more pay!
THAT IS NOT RIGHT AND THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY THIS CRAZY FREIGHTER COMMAND NONSENSE IF FINALLY STOPPED AND IT CANNOT BE POSSIBLE THAT THIS MUST ALL BE EXPLAINED YET AGAIN
d. If you go sick for a sniffle then someone else may have to work a weekend of requested G's and miss his wife's birthday (they can extend you into a G on a whim if they wish)
THAT IS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE SICK PEOPLE SHOULD BE REPLACED BY THOSE ON RESERVE, NOT THOSE ON G DAYS. THOSE ON G DAYS CANNOT BE CONTACTED UNLESS THEY ANSWER THEIR PHONE AND DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE TO WORK EVEN IF THEY DO ANSWER THEIR PHONE. AS FOR EXTENSIONS INTO G DAYS, THAT'S RIGHT: NO ROSTERING SYSTEM IS FLAWLESS ENOUGH TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT
e. If you opt for super-compact rosters then someone less senior may not get them and someone more senior may not get the trip they want.
THAT'S RIGHT, BUT AS A GROUP THE AOA AGREED TO THIS, AND IT IS NOT FAIR BUT THAT IS DEMOCRACY SOMETIMES
f. If you work a G then someone on reserve may not get called out into overtime (but may be happier to have the day at home with their children anyway)
THAT'S RIGHT, BUT THE ONLY REASON THEY CALL PEOPLE ON G DAYS IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW ALMOST EXACTLY HOW MANY R DAY PEOPLE THEY WILL NEED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHICH OPTION IS MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER. EVERYONE WOULD RATHER BE DOING SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEM HAPPIER THAN GOING TO WORK, BUT WHEN YOU ARE ROSTERED FOR AN R DAY, TOO BAD, AS YOU ARE THE ONE ON CALL.
Have a nice G day!
P.S. And try not to rip off the R guy's overtime, please? Then he won't want to rip you off next month. It's just so plain and simple...
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, no need to shout. Do you really think shouting ever helps?
Your comment:
"THAT'S RIGHT, BUT AS A GROUP THE AOA AGREED TO THIS, AND IT IS NOT FAIR BUT THAT IS DEMOCRACY SOMETIMES"
is pertinent to this discussion. The AOA also agreed to the G day payment scheme although, as is the case with many points, we would have wished for more money for working a G.
Perhaps you should lead a concerted effort from within the AOA to have a specific vote on the union as a whole pledging not to work G days until the G day payment is increased or something like that but at the moment, it's part of our rostering agreement so anyone wishing to work G's may do so.
I neither support nor oppose G day working but what I do object to is people trying to attach a stigma to it in the same way as (mostly the same people) try to attach a stigma to early freighter commands. It's unnecessary, offensive and demeans our profession.
Most importantly I'd urge people who want to work G days to stand up for themselves and not be bullied by the shouters.
Your comment:
"THAT'S RIGHT, BUT AS A GROUP THE AOA AGREED TO THIS, AND IT IS NOT FAIR BUT THAT IS DEMOCRACY SOMETIMES"
is pertinent to this discussion. The AOA also agreed to the G day payment scheme although, as is the case with many points, we would have wished for more money for working a G.
Perhaps you should lead a concerted effort from within the AOA to have a specific vote on the union as a whole pledging not to work G days until the G day payment is increased or something like that but at the moment, it's part of our rostering agreement so anyone wishing to work G's may do so.
I neither support nor oppose G day working but what I do object to is people trying to attach a stigma to it in the same way as (mostly the same people) try to attach a stigma to early freighter commands. It's unnecessary, offensive and demeans our profession.
Most importantly I'd urge people who want to work G days to stand up for themselves and not be bullied by the shouters.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Pprune site is scrambling posting times again, try to put this one after the guy who suggested bid lines.
Don't even waste your time thinking of bid line or preferential rostering systems in CX.
The first takes at least 8% more crew and requires only 10% of our current scheduling staff. "They", that is scheduling staff would never let Hoi Lan get away with it for the second figure and he would never allow it for the first.
Preferential rostering suggests choice and lack of contol, which cannot be tolerated. We tried to introduce it years ago, devised by AOA pilots with brains far smarter than the entire third floor, but it was rejected.
G day workers are at present allowed by the company and the AOA. In my opinion it is far from good, but until the AOA goes for a suggestion that we might need our rest days (a suggestion only, a ban on G day working may be illegal and would need testing in the courts) then only peer pressure that cannot be construed as intimidation is possible.
Sounds like a divide and rule recipe to me, maybe that is part of the plan...
Don't even waste your time thinking of bid line or preferential rostering systems in CX.
The first takes at least 8% more crew and requires only 10% of our current scheduling staff. "They", that is scheduling staff would never let Hoi Lan get away with it for the second figure and he would never allow it for the first.
Preferential rostering suggests choice and lack of contol, which cannot be tolerated. We tried to introduce it years ago, devised by AOA pilots with brains far smarter than the entire third floor, but it was rejected.
G day workers are at present allowed by the company and the AOA. In my opinion it is far from good, but until the AOA goes for a suggestion that we might need our rest days (a suggestion only, a ban on G day working may be illegal and would need testing in the courts) then only peer pressure that cannot be construed as intimidation is possible.
Sounds like a divide and rule recipe to me, maybe that is part of the plan...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist
Ouch, a barbed retort - hardly appropriate as I thought the post was pretty self-explanatory. By way of riposte, I'm having a hard time understanding your post when you say, should we ever try to "shut down the airline", the G day workers (and presumably non-members) would turn up en masse. If, by your own admission, there are pilots to fly the aircraft, isn't your argument somewhat compromised?
You speak of conciliation (I'm not sure you actually meant that process but let's assume for the sake of argument that you did) as though it's a dirty word. The conciliation process has its place in disputes and doesn't necessarily imply weakness on the part of either party.
Wasn't the conciliatory housing agreement you seem to be disparaging negotiated under their watch? I might be wrong and I'm happy to have my chronology corrected if that's the case.
If this little debate is a fair reflection (and I think it probably is) of the difference of opinion that exists in relation to something as (arguably) insignificant as whether or not those who choose to work on their G days should be "named and shamed" then I would suggest that your somewhat idealistic notion of "shutting down the airline " is sadly misguided.
Finally, the idealist/pragmatist comparison was meant to be a play on the optimist/pessimist joke (hence the smiley) but I was rather hoping I wouldn't have to explain that.
STP
I am actually having a hard time understanding your post.
You speak of conciliation (I'm not sure you actually meant that process but let's assume for the sake of argument that you did) as though it's a dirty word. The conciliation process has its place in disputes and doesn't necessarily imply weakness on the part of either party.
I think PW and his teams played this quite well in the last round.
If this little debate is a fair reflection (and I think it probably is) of the difference of opinion that exists in relation to something as (arguably) insignificant as whether or not those who choose to work on their G days should be "named and shamed" then I would suggest that your somewhat idealistic notion of "shutting down the airline " is sadly misguided.
Finally, the idealist/pragmatist comparison was meant to be a play on the optimist/pessimist joke (hence the smiley) but I was rather hoping I wouldn't have to explain that.
STP
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STP,
The presence of "mildly scabby" members and non-members who would work during some form of IA is worth noting but does not preclude IA entirely. CX runs a lean operation, and this makes them vulnerable. The AOA does not need 100% participation to launch effective IA. You know that and to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest. See my question below to Iceman...
The proposed housing agreement never made it past the GC and was not part of the latest round of pay negotiations for which I was complimenting PW et al. They occurred previous to the pay talks as a follow up to the 2009 SLS agreement in which we secured 25 year housing. The negotiated deal was completely conciliatory and unacceptable, hence the GC's near unanimous rejection. Two of our brightest and hardest working leaders negotiated that deal but must have suffered some form of Stockholm Syndrome whilst caged with SK. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, you might be familiar with that situation.
Iceman,
You explain to me how 50 crews was going to do the work of 600+ pilots over a sustained period of time... And I'll tell when I joined and on which fleet... Not that doing so will make any case one way or another about how principled I am. You guys just love to pin the responsibility of degrading conditions on NJers when we ought to be taking care of it ourselves...
The presence of "mildly scabby" members and non-members who would work during some form of IA is worth noting but does not preclude IA entirely. CX runs a lean operation, and this makes them vulnerable. The AOA does not need 100% participation to launch effective IA. You know that and to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest. See my question below to Iceman...
The proposed housing agreement never made it past the GC and was not part of the latest round of pay negotiations for which I was complimenting PW et al. They occurred previous to the pay talks as a follow up to the 2009 SLS agreement in which we secured 25 year housing. The negotiated deal was completely conciliatory and unacceptable, hence the GC's near unanimous rejection. Two of our brightest and hardest working leaders negotiated that deal but must have suffered some form of Stockholm Syndrome whilst caged with SK. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, you might be familiar with that situation.
Iceman,
You explain to me how 50 crews was going to do the work of 600+ pilots over a sustained period of time... And I'll tell when I joined and on which fleet... Not that doing so will make any case one way or another about how principled I am. You guys just love to pin the responsibility of degrading conditions on NJers when we ought to be taking care of it ourselves...
Last edited by cxorcist; 1st Dec 2011 at 16:48.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess repeating this again is necessary after all:
There is no argument as to whether working G days is allowed or part of the RP's, etc....The argument is that it is 100% in the power of pilots not to respond to such requests and to let pilots who are on duty (R days), including themselves when it is their turn, make many more times that the small G day callout payment for the same amount of work.
Either you make your time worth more money, or you make your time worth less money. Yes, the choice is up to you, and was agreed to by the majority. However, nobody HAS to take them up on their tiny offer, but for some insane reason, many do, costing themselves and their coworkers a whole lot of money over the year.
Someone's voluntary choice to deny me overtime while I remain on duty (most often for free), just so they can get G day callout pay, certainly does bother me and I certainly do oppose it.
There is no argument as to whether working G days is allowed or part of the RP's, etc....The argument is that it is 100% in the power of pilots not to respond to such requests and to let pilots who are on duty (R days), including themselves when it is their turn, make many more times that the small G day callout payment for the same amount of work.
Either you make your time worth more money, or you make your time worth less money. Yes, the choice is up to you, and was agreed to by the majority. However, nobody HAS to take them up on their tiny offer, but for some insane reason, many do, costing themselves and their coworkers a whole lot of money over the year.
Someone's voluntary choice to deny me overtime while I remain on duty (most often for free), just so they can get G day callout pay, certainly does bother me and I certainly do oppose it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think we may agree then, it's a choice. Some people may like it, some not, but to try to intimidate and bully people in public by "naming and shaming" is nonsense.
I don't work G's because the money offered doesn't match the value I place on my days off. To some it does and that's their choice to make, not yours or anyone elses.
I don't work G's because the money offered doesn't match the value I place on my days off. To some it does and that's their choice to make, not yours or anyone elses.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about my overtime?
What if I am into overtime and they ask me to work on a G day? Maybe I should be altruistic and donate it to another crew member I don't know. I don't think so.
Well I don't know about the rest of you but I am doing these tedious ulh's for one reason MONEY. The enjoyable flying stopped in the Air Force and contrary to expectations, there are no parties down route with Mongkok Airways.
Without a proper rostering system the only way to control our lives is to use whatever tools are available to us and if that means working on a G then so be it. Especially if I get offered the choice of 5 trips. As good as it gets in this company..
Make the most of it because we could soon be back into SLS.
It's the money stupid......
Well I don't know about the rest of you but I am doing these tedious ulh's for one reason MONEY. The enjoyable flying stopped in the Air Force and contrary to expectations, there are no parties down route with Mongkok Airways.
Without a proper rostering system the only way to control our lives is to use whatever tools are available to us and if that means working on a G then so be it. Especially if I get offered the choice of 5 trips. As good as it gets in this company..
Make the most of it because we could soon be back into SLS.
It's the money stupid......