Young Adelaide Instructors win against CX
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CXHK,
Allow me to uncross the roads for you. I do NOT think your case for a D&G is anywhere near as strong as you seem to believe, despite your CoS references. FOP is going to handle this as they see fit under the advice of their lawyers, and nothing you do is going to change that. My recommendation is to keep your chin tucked in rather than sticking your head above the parapet, especially if you are an SO or FO.
I must question your motivations, however. Are you really upset about a few pilots that got a one-off, "good deal"? Were you upset when they joined? Why did you not raise your D&G then? How much are they going to delay your career progression by? A week or two...
These guys could easily have accepted the same crap deal you did when you joined as a CEP, and their seniority would be same as they are fighting for now. Does it really matter whether they were eating sandwiches on widebodies or instructing at the FTA? I believe their flying skills are far better off having spent three years instructing in Adelaide as opposed to making bad radio calls, doing elementary math on the CFP, or spinning the heading bug over the Pacific. I certainly think they should get full expat benefits if that was agreed to contractually, regardless of the RDO which is being grossly misinterpreted and misused by the company.
If the company does bring them to Hong Kong only to sack them, then we will know for sure that nothing has changed since 2001. The HKAOA actually attempted to eliminate the companies ability to fire without cause during the SLS negotiations in 2009, but NR adamantly refused. Pretty sad if you really think about it...
Allow me to uncross the roads for you. I do NOT think your case for a D&G is anywhere near as strong as you seem to believe, despite your CoS references. FOP is going to handle this as they see fit under the advice of their lawyers, and nothing you do is going to change that. My recommendation is to keep your chin tucked in rather than sticking your head above the parapet, especially if you are an SO or FO.
I must question your motivations, however. Are you really upset about a few pilots that got a one-off, "good deal"? Were you upset when they joined? Why did you not raise your D&G then? How much are they going to delay your career progression by? A week or two...
These guys could easily have accepted the same crap deal you did when you joined as a CEP, and their seniority would be same as they are fighting for now. Does it really matter whether they were eating sandwiches on widebodies or instructing at the FTA? I believe their flying skills are far better off having spent three years instructing in Adelaide as opposed to making bad radio calls, doing elementary math on the CFP, or spinning the heading bug over the Pacific. I certainly think they should get full expat benefits if that was agreed to contractually, regardless of the RDO which is being grossly misinterpreted and misused by the company.
If the company does bring them to Hong Kong only to sack them, then we will know for sure that nothing has changed since 2001. The HKAOA actually attempted to eliminate the companies ability to fire without cause during the SLS negotiations in 2009, but NR adamantly refused. Pretty sad if you really think about it...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have a valid contract. They could have moved up to HK years ago but they decided to accept the terms and conditions offered which required them to remain in ADL for a few years of instruction. The quid pro quo was expat terms.
cxhk - they have seniority - and if you read COS you will see that CX can second you. There are precedents to 'employed but seconded' without it being Check and Training.
There is no breach of contract for them to be currently employed and seconded. The breach of contract will be if CX doesn't honour its side of the contract. So far that hasn't happened.
cxhk - they have seniority - and if you read COS you will see that CX can second you. There are precedents to 'employed but seconded' without it being Check and Training.
There is no breach of contract for them to be currently employed and seconded. The breach of contract will be if CX doesn't honour its side of the contract. So far that hasn't happened.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CXHK,
Allow me to uncross the roads for you. I do NOT think your case for a D&G is anywhere near as strong as you seem to believe, despite your CoS references. FOP is going to handle this as they see fit under the advice of their lawyers, and nothing you do is going to change that. My recommendation is to keep your chin tucked in rather than sticking your head above the parapet, especially if you are an SO or FO.
I must question your motivations, however. Are you really upset about a few pilots that got a one-off, "good deal"? Were you upset when they joined? Why did you not raise your D&G then? How much are they going to delay your career progression by? A week or two...
These guys could easily have accepted the same crap deal you did when you joined as a CEP, and their seniority would be same as they are fighting for now. Does it really matter whether they were eating sandwiches on widebodies or instructing at the FTA? I believe their flying skills are far better off having spent three years instructing in Adelaide as opposed to making bad radio calls, doing elementary math on the CFP, or spinning the heading bug over the Pacific. I certainly think they should get full expat benefits if that was agreed to contractually, regardless of the RDO which is being grossly misinterpreted and misused by the company.
If the company does bring them to Hong Kong only to sack them, then we will know for sure that nothing has changed since 2001. The HKAOA actually attempted to eliminate the companies ability to fire without cause during the SLS negotiations in 2009, but NR adamantly refused. Pretty sad if you really think about it...
Allow me to uncross the roads for you. I do NOT think your case for a D&G is anywhere near as strong as you seem to believe, despite your CoS references. FOP is going to handle this as they see fit under the advice of their lawyers, and nothing you do is going to change that. My recommendation is to keep your chin tucked in rather than sticking your head above the parapet, especially if you are an SO or FO.
I must question your motivations, however. Are you really upset about a few pilots that got a one-off, "good deal"? Were you upset when they joined? Why did you not raise your D&G then? How much are they going to delay your career progression by? A week or two...
These guys could easily have accepted the same crap deal you did when you joined as a CEP, and their seniority would be same as they are fighting for now. Does it really matter whether they were eating sandwiches on widebodies or instructing at the FTA? I believe their flying skills are far better off having spent three years instructing in Adelaide as opposed to making bad radio calls, doing elementary math on the CFP, or spinning the heading bug over the Pacific. I certainly think they should get full expat benefits if that was agreed to contractually, regardless of the RDO which is being grossly misinterpreted and misused by the company.
If the company does bring them to Hong Kong only to sack them, then we will know for sure that nothing has changed since 2001. The HKAOA actually attempted to eliminate the companies ability to fire without cause during the SLS negotiations in 2009, but NR adamantly refused. Pretty sad if you really think about it...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cxorcist,
I must complete disagree with your reply to cxhk. Just because we are talking about 12 people out of 2700 does not remove the fact that any breach of contract - wrt seniority- is still a breach.
It is this whole set-up where different people get different terms that causes in-house fighting amongst us and makes management jump for joy.
I personally know an SO that could potentially be affected by this breach of seniority - regardless if it is 1 or 2 weeks. Whilst I am not his dad, I wonder if I can cause a similar song and dance. Oopps I'm not an A-Scale big dick.
Congrats CX management
even though you failed on not honoring your promise with these FIs you still come out as winners. You have us fighting again.
I must complete disagree with your reply to cxhk. Just because we are talking about 12 people out of 2700 does not remove the fact that any breach of contract - wrt seniority- is still a breach.
It is this whole set-up where different people get different terms that causes in-house fighting amongst us and makes management jump for joy.
I personally know an SO that could potentially be affected by this breach of seniority - regardless if it is 1 or 2 weeks. Whilst I am not his dad, I wonder if I can cause a similar song and dance. Oopps I'm not an A-Scale big dick.
Congrats CX management
even though you failed on not honoring your promise with these FIs you still come out as winners. You have us fighting again.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betpump and CXHK,
I still don't see a clear breach of contract based on the CoS. That said, I do understand what you are referring to and why you see a possible breach. More importantly however, do you think you will be able to prove your point in a grievance proceeding or labour tribunal? I don't think so. Without knowing what is written in the instructors contract, I think the company will get their way here.
That said, I understand operating on principle regardless of the numbers. I just don't see this as a black and white issue based on the CoS. For comparison, freighter PXing is very straightforward contractually, yet we are still struggling to get that portion of the CoS honored by the company.
Smell what I'm stepping in???
I still don't see a clear breach of contract based on the CoS. That said, I do understand what you are referring to and why you see a possible breach. More importantly however, do you think you will be able to prove your point in a grievance proceeding or labour tribunal? I don't think so. Without knowing what is written in the instructors contract, I think the company will get their way here.
That said, I understand operating on principle regardless of the numbers. I just don't see this as a black and white issue based on the CoS. For comparison, freighter PXing is very straightforward contractually, yet we are still struggling to get that portion of the CoS honored by the company.
Smell what I'm stepping in???
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of rumours on the street - yes rumors on a rumour network so don't bite my head off!
Firstly the original promise in terms of seniority for the FIs was never meant to be upheld as it is a complete breach- see cxhk post. It was just a quick fix, wink of the eye, nod of the head and hope for the best tactic by the company to settle a small but nagging problem of instability within the flight school in terms of not holding onto FIs and the effect this would have on the cadet programme.
Secondly, an FI during the recent uncertainty left their post as an FI and joined the short course (6 months cadet programme) as they didn't want to work a couple more years for the same package as the guys/gals they were training and who would join CX well before they finished their FI placement.
Ouch- the benefit of a crystal ball!
Firstly the original promise in terms of seniority for the FIs was never meant to be upheld as it is a complete breach- see cxhk post. It was just a quick fix, wink of the eye, nod of the head and hope for the best tactic by the company to settle a small but nagging problem of instability within the flight school in terms of not holding onto FIs and the effect this would have on the cadet programme.
Secondly, an FI during the recent uncertainty left their post as an FI and joined the short course (6 months cadet programme) as they didn't want to work a couple more years for the same package as the guys/gals they were training and who would join CX well before they finished their FI placement.
Ouch- the benefit of a crystal ball!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Secondly, an FI during the recent uncertainty left their post as an FI and joined the short course (6 months cadet programme) as they didn't want to work a couple more years for the same package as the guys/gals they were training and who would join CX well before they finished their FI placement.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole
Age: 93
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I think about this, the more I realise that CX got exactly the result they wanted.
Think about it.
The money lost from the back dated seniority is chump change for CX. Just look at our 'leaders' recent bonuses. The back dated seniority has the added effect of sowing dissension among the new SO's: Cadets against FTA guys. Just what we need as the AOA destroys itself (yet again) through its own internal politics. So now we have another angle to the divide and conquer strategy.
The real prize I think was the no expat package. This is where the real money is and CX won big time by these guys not getting it. CX played the long game on this one and won.
Think about it.
The money lost from the back dated seniority is chump change for CX. Just look at our 'leaders' recent bonuses. The back dated seniority has the added effect of sowing dissension among the new SO's: Cadets against FTA guys. Just what we need as the AOA destroys itself (yet again) through its own internal politics. So now we have another angle to the divide and conquer strategy.
The real prize I think was the no expat package. This is where the real money is and CX won big time by these guys not getting it. CX played the long game on this one and won.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the past 33 posts, hands up those who have actually recently spoken to one of the instructors or their Dads. Put your hands down if what you have written is second-hand, or what you overheard in " The Gay Bar".
There are some very different and opposing versions here, you all can't be right.
There are some very different and opposing versions here, you all can't be right.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Claus
So your position, attained from first hand info, is that, contrary to the originating post, the instructors are no longer being offered expat terms. Two questions;
1. Has the non-payment of expat terms been accepted by all the cadet instructors (is this a done deal)?
2. What is their seniority date, the date they commenced their initial course or the date they started Instructor duties?
Obviously, anyone can answer the questions, but please preface your answer with "I have spoken directly with a Cadet Instructor" or "I am a trolling sock puppet". That way we will all know if you are talking Shiite or not.
1. Has the non-payment of expat terms been accepted by all the cadet instructors (is this a done deal)?
2. What is their seniority date, the date they commenced their initial course or the date they started Instructor duties?
Obviously, anyone can answer the questions, but please preface your answer with "I have spoken directly with a Cadet Instructor" or "I am a trolling sock puppet". That way we will all know if you are talking Shiite or not.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only breach of contract was from Cx. It is as simple as that. Cx made a comitment that they then did not respect. If Cx did not give them an empty promise back then, these instructors would have been way ahead of you in seniority!
Good on you Bruno for standing up to the bully and defeating him.
The rest of you that feel so done in, grow up and look at the big picture here!
Stop being so selfish and hope one day that when , not if, but when Cx tries to bully you into signing away something, that you do have some one like Bruno that is willing to put his career on the line for your sake.
Because I can guarantee you that when the time to stand up and be counted comes, you will be the first to run away.
Good on you Bruno for standing up to the bully and defeating him.
The rest of you that feel so done in, grow up and look at the big picture here!
Stop being so selfish and hope one day that when , not if, but when Cx tries to bully you into signing away something, that you do have some one like Bruno that is willing to put his career on the line for your sake.
Because I can guarantee you that when the time to stand up and be counted comes, you will be the first to run away.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole
Age: 93
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your questions LG. I only spoke with one of the fathers (although I did speak with one of the other ones a few months ago about the same matter) recently and so can only speak for his son. I didn't ask for specifics, because it was not the time and place and honestly, I didn't want to be pushing into something that was obviously a sensitive subject for his family. So I don't have dates, copies of contracts etc. What I do know is that he said his son will not be on expat terms and was considering the offer of the back dated seniority.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: HK
Age: 24
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought we left the lack of honor/ integrity to CX.
These positions were advertised as, join CX as an s/o,
iso flying the 744/777/340 you will be seconded to ADL to work as a flight instructor, accruing SO seniority. 6mth prior to JFO upgrade you would do SO course so that you would upgrade to JFO in order, on the same COS as if you just started in HK from scratch.
Regardless of what the exact details were, this was the intent and all parties were aware of it. Hence why these guys already have a seniority number and are in the AOA.
So many times CX change the rules after the contract is signed and that is what we all work towards to stop.
These positions were advertised as, join CX as an s/o,
iso flying the 744/777/340 you will be seconded to ADL to work as a flight instructor, accruing SO seniority. 6mth prior to JFO upgrade you would do SO course so that you would upgrade to JFO in order, on the same COS as if you just started in HK from scratch.
Regardless of what the exact details were, this was the intent and all parties were aware of it. Hence why these guys already have a seniority number and are in the AOA.
So many times CX change the rules after the contract is signed and that is what we all work towards to stop.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam G
The guys have 100% met their side of the contract....and whilst there has been no breach by CX, so far, they have been warned for the last 18months that CX fully intends to renege on the contract. You can imagine how this would affect the 18 guys. The 19th guy folded about 10months ago and signed away his contractual rights.
The other 18 are HKAOA members as they are employed by CX, but seconded.
And yes I am in frequent communication with them.
The other 18 are HKAOA members as they are employed by CX, but seconded.
And yes I am in frequent communication with them.