Cathay To Close Bases
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost all of those PX guys using the bunks are not allowed, and I didn't read anything about CA discretion regarding their use: Bunks are restricted to operating crew and other flight crew on PX travel only if they require in flight rest to satisfy the AFTLS. So not all PX crew are allowed, and certainly not those PXing home from ANC. Yeah? GMA forgot to put this detail in his offer.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History repeating itself!
It is interesting and somewhat amusing to read the rhetoric over the issue of PXing on the freighter, the threats of intimidation against those who sign the waiver and the bravado of how everyone is going to take on the company.
Gentlemen, there is a reality and I have seen this all before during my many years here at CX. First, there is no requirement to join the HKAOA in Hong Kong so pilots are free to do whatever they wish. CX knows that and acts accordingly, leaving individuals to make their own choices. I recall a freighter Captain almost losing his job because he once intimidated an FO because they differed on views of an issue.
Anonymous forums are a great way to vent one's frustrations and it is amazing how tough one can be when you don't have to give your real name. Many of my colleagues talked a big story, made disparing catcalls behind their colleagues backs and said how they were going to take on the company. Ironically, when the chips were down, it was these same individuals who were the first to turn and run. The result, 49 very capable pilots lost their jobs. And what did we do, we should have downed tools, but we all quickly went back to work. And happy to have our jobs.
For too many years, the HKAOA leveraged gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the bases. Those days are over as the bases now have the strength of collective labour legislation behind them. Pilots on bases have to belong to their union and pay dues. No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand. Do you really think we give a tinker's dam about HKG housing?
Who was the individual who once spoke of those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it?
Now gents, back to your anonymous bravado.
Gentlemen, there is a reality and I have seen this all before during my many years here at CX. First, there is no requirement to join the HKAOA in Hong Kong so pilots are free to do whatever they wish. CX knows that and acts accordingly, leaving individuals to make their own choices. I recall a freighter Captain almost losing his job because he once intimidated an FO because they differed on views of an issue.
Anonymous forums are a great way to vent one's frustrations and it is amazing how tough one can be when you don't have to give your real name. Many of my colleagues talked a big story, made disparing catcalls behind their colleagues backs and said how they were going to take on the company. Ironically, when the chips were down, it was these same individuals who were the first to turn and run. The result, 49 very capable pilots lost their jobs. And what did we do, we should have downed tools, but we all quickly went back to work. And happy to have our jobs.
For too many years, the HKAOA leveraged gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the bases. Those days are over as the bases now have the strength of collective labour legislation behind them. Pilots on bases have to belong to their union and pay dues. No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand. Do you really think we give a tinker's dam about HKG housing?
Who was the individual who once spoke of those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it?
Now gents, back to your anonymous bravado.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think we give a tinker's dam about HKG housing?
And then, do you really think you'll then just be allowed to slide right back into HKG without going to the bottom of the list (if at all) after new job openings are advertised to replace you?
Good luck with that.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron, if they close a base, the pilots involved can relocate to HK on their seniority level benefits and salary. I really don't understand where you are coming from....
ps. I think Westcoastcaptain's comments are even more offensive and rather crass. We ALL have a vested interest in each others conditions. Anyone who doesn't understand that is doomed to a very miserable and frustrating career.
ps. I think Westcoastcaptain's comments are even more offensive and rather crass. We ALL have a vested interest in each others conditions. Anyone who doesn't understand that is doomed to a very miserable and frustrating career.
Last edited by Tornado Ali; 20th May 2012 at 14:53.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same old rhetoric!!!
Iron Skillet, thanks for responding so quickly to my post. I see I may have struck a nerve.
CX has always used threats to facilitate gains. How long have you been here? The reality is the last base they will close is the YVR base. They are worried about pilot retention and besides the severance packages would kill them. Why do you think negotiations are going so well in Canada. Much to the chagrin of the HKAOA, I might add. Both employers and employees are required to negotiate in good faith. It is the law. But more importantly the last thing CX wants is to go to arbitration. Just imagine their response when the arbitrator wants to see their books or the discussion of bases comes up. They tried the same threats with the YVR Cabin Crew, the clarion call being "take the cuts or we will close the base. Your costs are too high." There were no cuts and the cabin crew have a new contract.
You say the HKAOA Federation financed the onshoring negotiations. I suggest you have a look at the funds that are diverted to the HKAOA from the Canadian Union. The real issue here is the HKAOA used to leverage gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the based pilots. Those days are over with a completely negotiated contract here in Canada.
So........for all of your bravado, remember it is much easier to get rid of a pilot in HKG than on a base. So for you it is good luck!
CX has always used threats to facilitate gains. How long have you been here? The reality is the last base they will close is the YVR base. They are worried about pilot retention and besides the severance packages would kill them. Why do you think negotiations are going so well in Canada. Much to the chagrin of the HKAOA, I might add. Both employers and employees are required to negotiate in good faith. It is the law. But more importantly the last thing CX wants is to go to arbitration. Just imagine their response when the arbitrator wants to see their books or the discussion of bases comes up. They tried the same threats with the YVR Cabin Crew, the clarion call being "take the cuts or we will close the base. Your costs are too high." There were no cuts and the cabin crew have a new contract.
You say the HKAOA Federation financed the onshoring negotiations. I suggest you have a look at the funds that are diverted to the HKAOA from the Canadian Union. The real issue here is the HKAOA used to leverage gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the based pilots. Those days are over with a completely negotiated contract here in Canada.
So........for all of your bravado, remember it is much easier to get rid of a pilot in HKG than on a base. So for you it is good luck!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt:
As soon as the collective agreement is signed and in effect, CX can reduce or close the YVR base as they please. You are mistaken that Canadian Labour Law prohibits this. Have seen this happen several times before with actual Canadian airlines, considering CX Canada is only a Canadian entity of a Hong Kong company you are on even weaker ground. You are also incorrect in your assumption that you will receive a severance package. As you are still part of a global seniority list, the basings agreement will govern how a base closure is dealt with. You can choose any vacancies available in your basings area (which leaves only YYZ) based on seniority, choose to return to Hong Kong, choose any available vacancy where you have the right to live and work based on seniority or choose to terminate your employment if the previous options don't appeal to you.
You are also incorrect with your statement "No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand."
You are not required to join a union in Canada, however you are required to pay the union dues, either to the union or another suitable organization of your choosing. Every Canadian airline I have worked for or know off, the collective agreement applies equally to union and non-union employees.
As soon as the collective agreement is signed and in effect, CX can reduce or close the YVR base as they please. You are mistaken that Canadian Labour Law prohibits this. Have seen this happen several times before with actual Canadian airlines, considering CX Canada is only a Canadian entity of a Hong Kong company you are on even weaker ground. You are also incorrect in your assumption that you will receive a severance package. As you are still part of a global seniority list, the basings agreement will govern how a base closure is dealt with. You can choose any vacancies available in your basings area (which leaves only YYZ) based on seniority, choose to return to Hong Kong, choose any available vacancy where you have the right to live and work based on seniority or choose to terminate your employment if the previous options don't appeal to you.
You are also incorrect with your statement "No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand."
You are not required to join a union in Canada, however you are required to pay the union dues, either to the union or another suitable organization of your choosing. Every Canadian airline I have worked for or know off, the collective agreement applies equally to union and non-union employees.
Last edited by GTC58; 20th May 2012 at 17:12.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, I didn't say the agreements with the company don't appear to entitle pilots to return to HKG as per their seniority....I meant good luck expecting that it actually happens that way.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcastcapt
A couple of quick questions,
1. Do you believed forced PXing on the Freighter is contrary to your COS?
2. From the 1st July, could the company roster a YVR pilot to PX on the Freighter without the pilot's consent?
1. Do you believed forced PXing on the Freighter is contrary to your COS?
2. From the 1st July, could the company roster a YVR pilot to PX on the Freighter without the pilot's consent?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad!
For Tornado Ali,
As I reread my posts I don't recall ever using any derogatory terms to describe my colleagues. I may disagree with your posts but I don't need to resort to name calling. Rather sad really, you probably think you are really something. I just stated an account of the history and if you decide to disagree that is your perogative. If you decide to check the facts you may find that I am indeed correct on many of the points.
Your colleague is indeed quite correct that in Canada you do not have to belong to the union, but you are required to pay the dues. It is called the Rand Formula and it is to prevent exactly what occurs here in Hong Kong. Again Tornado may call me a moron but after the 49er debacle many of our colleagues abandoned the HKAOA because they didn't want to pay the increased subs to aid our colleagues who lost their jobs. Again, it was many who talked with great bravado who were the first to abandon ship.
The Crofts case in the UK was the impetus for CX to go onshore as the UK courts found that Mr Crofts was indeed employed in the UK and subject to UK labour law. You may find that we are indeed employed in Canada and subject to Canadian Labour law. Why do you think negotiations have gone so well?
Quite frankly I don't care what many of you decide as I have no intention of going along with it, no matter what the HKAOA decides. I have seen the results of anonymity firsthand and believe me it is full of selfinterest.
Just to wrap up, I once recall a colleague belittling another colleague behind his back. Rather sad really, like an 8 year old schoolboy. I bet him he didn't have the courage to say it to the individual's face. He didn't.
Enough said.
As I reread my posts I don't recall ever using any derogatory terms to describe my colleagues. I may disagree with your posts but I don't need to resort to name calling. Rather sad really, you probably think you are really something. I just stated an account of the history and if you decide to disagree that is your perogative. If you decide to check the facts you may find that I am indeed correct on many of the points.
Your colleague is indeed quite correct that in Canada you do not have to belong to the union, but you are required to pay the dues. It is called the Rand Formula and it is to prevent exactly what occurs here in Hong Kong. Again Tornado may call me a moron but after the 49er debacle many of our colleagues abandoned the HKAOA because they didn't want to pay the increased subs to aid our colleagues who lost their jobs. Again, it was many who talked with great bravado who were the first to abandon ship.
The Crofts case in the UK was the impetus for CX to go onshore as the UK courts found that Mr Crofts was indeed employed in the UK and subject to UK labour law. You may find that we are indeed employed in Canada and subject to Canadian Labour law. Why do you think negotiations have gone so well?
Quite frankly I don't care what many of you decide as I have no intention of going along with it, no matter what the HKAOA decides. I have seen the results of anonymity firsthand and believe me it is full of selfinterest.
Just to wrap up, I once recall a colleague belittling another colleague behind his back. Rather sad really, like an 8 year old schoolboy. I bet him he didn't have the courage to say it to the individual's face. He didn't.
Enough said.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answers for Liam
Liam G,
I don't mind answering your questions in the least. It is rather nice to interact at a mature level.
First, yes it is against my COS to PX me on the freighter. I was once rostered to do so and called CC and said I won't as I flew pax and was quickly taken off and sent on Alaskan Airlines. Much better really.
To answer your second question, I think you have to answer first whether you have signed the waiver. If you have, then you are stuck.
First a little history. Tornado will probably say I'm wrong but again it is the facts. There is very little labour law in Hong kong, but what there is, is very good. CX cannot just change your contract unless it is an outright improvement. Yes, they can force a pay raise on you without your consent, but not a pay cut. No, they cannot force you to take unpaid leave. Our contract is very clear, last in first out. That is why they always bundle something good with something bad, just to get you to sign. So, if you have to sign it, I would suggest it is not to your benefit.
Hope this helps.
I don't mind answering your questions in the least. It is rather nice to interact at a mature level.
First, yes it is against my COS to PX me on the freighter. I was once rostered to do so and called CC and said I won't as I flew pax and was quickly taken off and sent on Alaskan Airlines. Much better really.
To answer your second question, I think you have to answer first whether you have signed the waiver. If you have, then you are stuck.
First a little history. Tornado will probably say I'm wrong but again it is the facts. There is very little labour law in Hong kong, but what there is, is very good. CX cannot just change your contract unless it is an outright improvement. Yes, they can force a pay raise on you without your consent, but not a pay cut. No, they cannot force you to take unpaid leave. Our contract is very clear, last in first out. That is why they always bundle something good with something bad, just to get you to sign. So, if you have to sign it, I would suggest it is not to your benefit.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Iron Skillet,
Yes, a number of colleagues have returned to Hong Kong from a base on the same pay and benefits. I may suggest they are even better than what you have.
Suggest you get out more and understand what is going on out there. Don't believe everything you hear.
Yes, a number of colleagues have returned to Hong Kong from a base on the same pay and benefits. I may suggest they are even better than what you have.
Suggest you get out more and understand what is going on out there. Don't believe everything you hear.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt
You do simplify the facts. CX Canada is a unique setup for Canada. Technical you are employed by a Canadian Shell entity of an Hong Kong Airline/Company with the sole purpose of crewing the YVR and YYZ bases and operating Hong Kong registered and owned aircraft under a Hong Kong Operating Certificate. Which means you are employed by a Canadian crewing company which has no assets and the only purpose is to employ pilots. The matters are even more complicated that your future collective agreement will reference a global seniority list and a basings agreement. Anyways, if you really think Canadian Labour law will protect your position on your base you are mistaken. You might want to contact the Canadian ALPA guys who have dealt with such things as base reductions and closures before in Canada. I think though you guys will be safe as CX has a very poor track record with their legal advisors which mostly are in-house or HKG based.
And if you are Canada based what is the whole point of your post. You are excluded from the whole PX proceedings because as you mentioned yourself CX and AOA Canada have to bargain in good faith and as such you can not sign the PX letter as this would be violating the bargaining process. Sure some people here post strong opinions, but my guess is that the majority will not sign as I have observed that a lot of the guys/girls are beyond the point where they can be intimidated. After all the recent disappointments from 2009 until present day in regards of SLS, housing, basings, AFTLs and abuse of freighter PXing to just name a few and constant conflict it seems the pilots good will has vanished.
You do simplify the facts. CX Canada is a unique setup for Canada. Technical you are employed by a Canadian Shell entity of an Hong Kong Airline/Company with the sole purpose of crewing the YVR and YYZ bases and operating Hong Kong registered and owned aircraft under a Hong Kong Operating Certificate. Which means you are employed by a Canadian crewing company which has no assets and the only purpose is to employ pilots. The matters are even more complicated that your future collective agreement will reference a global seniority list and a basings agreement. Anyways, if you really think Canadian Labour law will protect your position on your base you are mistaken. You might want to contact the Canadian ALPA guys who have dealt with such things as base reductions and closures before in Canada. I think though you guys will be safe as CX has a very poor track record with their legal advisors which mostly are in-house or HKG based.
And if you are Canada based what is the whole point of your post. You are excluded from the whole PX proceedings because as you mentioned yourself CX and AOA Canada have to bargain in good faith and as such you can not sign the PX letter as this would be violating the bargaining process. Sure some people here post strong opinions, but my guess is that the majority will not sign as I have observed that a lot of the guys/girls are beyond the point where they can be intimidated. After all the recent disappointments from 2009 until present day in regards of SLS, housing, basings, AFTLs and abuse of freighter PXing to just name a few and constant conflict it seems the pilots good will has vanished.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoast. Tornado obviously got under your skin. Your initial post was deserving of his contempt. Everything you said in that post was incorrect. Don't bother being defensive, you are wrong. Admit it and move on.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au Contraire!
For whatever reason, you may feel that the derogatory comments get under my skin. They don't in the least. Rather, you can tell when someone has little to opine, they just resort to name calling. It's all very sad, especially when it is an anonymous post.
My sole purpose in placing my initial post was to just state the facts. If you want to state I'm wrong, that is your perogative. However, I suspect I have been here much longer than most of you and probably have seen much of this before.
I will be guided accordingly.
My sole purpose in placing my initial post was to just state the facts. If you want to state I'm wrong, that is your perogative. However, I suspect I have been here much longer than most of you and probably have seen much of this before.
I will be guided accordingly.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the good ol' "I've been here longer than you" argument....a typical logical fallacy.
As mentioned, there are only 2 bases for CX Canada pilots....you may interpret things your way, but I know which way the company will interpret that, and how much they are always willing to spend in court and for how long they will drag things out to get their way.
Why have the negotiations gone so well? Yup, because they are stuck with it. Then guess what happens as soon as the negotiations are over and the contract is in place? Do you think you work for a different company than everyone else?
So, my prediction is that once the contracts are all in place, and there are no more legally binding limitations on shutting down the company, if that's when they feel like eliminating 100 or so positions, that's how they will do it, a whole "company" at a time (not a base closure), as has been done many times before around the world. Much more savings by eliminating expensive, roster-inflexible FO's and CN's (who may return to HKG with housing one day) rather than cheap SO's with no housing. Just a thought!
You may be blinded by your hopes and dreams, but again....remember who you work for. As usual, nobody seems to notice they always have an ace up their sleeve, just like the PX letter to sign.
As mentioned, there are only 2 bases for CX Canada pilots....you may interpret things your way, but I know which way the company will interpret that, and how much they are always willing to spend in court and for how long they will drag things out to get their way.
Why have the negotiations gone so well? Yup, because they are stuck with it. Then guess what happens as soon as the negotiations are over and the contract is in place? Do you think you work for a different company than everyone else?
So, my prediction is that once the contracts are all in place, and there are no more legally binding limitations on shutting down the company, if that's when they feel like eliminating 100 or so positions, that's how they will do it, a whole "company" at a time (not a base closure), as has been done many times before around the world. Much more savings by eliminating expensive, roster-inflexible FO's and CN's (who may return to HKG with housing one day) rather than cheap SO's with no housing. Just a thought!
You may be blinded by your hopes and dreams, but again....remember who you work for. As usual, nobody seems to notice they always have an ace up their sleeve, just like the PX letter to sign.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt
Sorry to press you on the answer to my second question, however the GMA's letter on Freighter Positioning was vague as to the Australian and Canadian pilots.
He says that all pilots, except those based in OZ and Canada, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter after the 1st July, unless they submit a consent form. He then went on to say that arrangements for the Oz and Canadan based pilots was yet to be determined.
Have you received further and better information, or are you assuming that unless you submit a consent (and you have not been offered that option) that you, or your YVR based colleagues, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter?
He says that all pilots, except those based in OZ and Canada, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter after the 1st July, unless they submit a consent form. He then went on to say that arrangements for the Oz and Canadan based pilots was yet to be determined.
Have you received further and better information, or are you assuming that unless you submit a consent (and you have not been offered that option) that you, or your YVR based colleagues, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning Liam,
Certainly a very good question. I cannot speak for the Aussies as I am not an expert, nor profess to be, an expert on Aussie Labour Law. But I do know a thing or two about Canada.
The reason the recent waiver letter does not apply to Canadian based pilots is due to the fact they are in negotiations. CX is not allowed to facilitate any changes whilst these negotiations are going on. It is against the law.
I doubt there will be anything in our new COS to allow for px'ing n the freighter so I have no concerns. That being said, I suspect CX may eventually try to wrap it in a supposed gain in order to get pilots to agree. Let's remember that their rostering and crew management is very amateurish so flexibilities such as freighter px'ing gives them the latitude they need.
You may recall that CX tried to impose SLS the last time on the YVR cabin crew with no success. In Canada, one must follow a certain protocol when trying to facilitate change. You cannot just impose it. Of course, they huffed and puffed, but in the end just walked away.
Certainly a very good question. I cannot speak for the Aussies as I am not an expert, nor profess to be, an expert on Aussie Labour Law. But I do know a thing or two about Canada.
The reason the recent waiver letter does not apply to Canadian based pilots is due to the fact they are in negotiations. CX is not allowed to facilitate any changes whilst these negotiations are going on. It is against the law.
I doubt there will be anything in our new COS to allow for px'ing n the freighter so I have no concerns. That being said, I suspect CX may eventually try to wrap it in a supposed gain in order to get pilots to agree. Let's remember that their rostering and crew management is very amateurish so flexibilities such as freighter px'ing gives them the latitude they need.
You may recall that CX tried to impose SLS the last time on the YVR cabin crew with no success. In Canada, one must follow a certain protocol when trying to facilitate change. You cannot just impose it. Of course, they huffed and puffed, but in the end just walked away.