Cathay To Close Bases
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Skillet,
Stop it, you're killing me. With predictions like that I look forward to any stock tips you can offer.
No seriously, I admire someone who has an opinion rather than just resorting to name calling. Not worth the effort.
Here let me offer you a little rope and see where it leads. If CX's intention is to close bases, why wait until there is a legitimate COS in place? The move to onshoring in Jan 2010 would have been an opportune time to sever ties with the Canadian bases. The longer this draws out, the more attention that is given the whole base structure. Remember the Croft's case. But perhaps of greater interest, why would CX threaten to close the CC base to secure concessions then sign a new contract for the same?
As you tangle yourself up, let me leave you with something. People continue to come even though the overall package in HKG continues to erode. What if they cut your housing by 50%. What could you or would you do? My guess is you will sign. Remember it costs a lot more to employ a pilot in HKG and on a per hour cost are more expensive.
This will keep you busy for awhile.
Stop it, you're killing me. With predictions like that I look forward to any stock tips you can offer.
No seriously, I admire someone who has an opinion rather than just resorting to name calling. Not worth the effort.
Here let me offer you a little rope and see where it leads. If CX's intention is to close bases, why wait until there is a legitimate COS in place? The move to onshoring in Jan 2010 would have been an opportune time to sever ties with the Canadian bases. The longer this draws out, the more attention that is given the whole base structure. Remember the Croft's case. But perhaps of greater interest, why would CX threaten to close the CC base to secure concessions then sign a new contract for the same?
As you tangle yourself up, let me leave you with something. People continue to come even though the overall package in HKG continues to erode. What if they cut your housing by 50%. What could you or would you do? My guess is you will sign. Remember it costs a lot more to employ a pilot in HKG and on a per hour cost are more expensive.
This will keep you busy for awhile.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt
My questions relate to what will occur on the 1st July and I note your negotiators are not back to the table until July (at the earliest). What may or may not be in your final agreement is fun to speculate, but irrelevant to what may appear on the next YVR (and SYD) based rosters, published on the 15th June.
You stated that it is against your COS to PX on the Freighter. That is the also the position of the Exco and it would appear, by implication, to be the position of the company. Therefore, this becomes a matter of COS enforcement, not change. In this light, why has the company yet to determine a policy for the Canadians and Aussies?
Could it be that the company is waiting to tally up the numbers of pilots that consent to PX on the Freighter, and if numbers are insufficient to publish a roster, particularly the DAC-HAN-HKG trip, they will utilize the YVR and SYD based pilots on such trips. This rather distasteful action will be shrouded in phrases such as "on-shoring" and " maintainance of accepted practice".
So the question to you, or more specifically all of your 747 colleagues, should this occur, what are you going to do? Will you all fly your rosters to "curry favour" with your employers in the hope of rewards at the negotiating table?
Perhaps these are not questions for this forum, but they are certainly questions that need to put to Nick B. well before the 15th June!!
You stated that it is against your COS to PX on the Freighter. That is the also the position of the Exco and it would appear, by implication, to be the position of the company. Therefore, this becomes a matter of COS enforcement, not change. In this light, why has the company yet to determine a policy for the Canadians and Aussies?
Could it be that the company is waiting to tally up the numbers of pilots that consent to PX on the Freighter, and if numbers are insufficient to publish a roster, particularly the DAC-HAN-HKG trip, they will utilize the YVR and SYD based pilots on such trips. This rather distasteful action will be shrouded in phrases such as "on-shoring" and " maintainance of accepted practice".
So the question to you, or more specifically all of your 747 colleagues, should this occur, what are you going to do? Will you all fly your rosters to "curry favour" with your employers in the hope of rewards at the negotiating table?
Perhaps these are not questions for this forum, but they are certainly questions that need to put to Nick B. well before the 15th June!!
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 22nd May 2012 at 00:12.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt
If CX's intention is to close bases, why wait until there is a legitimate COS in place?
CX is not allowed to facilitate any changes whilst these negotiations are going on. It is against the law.
Last edited by SMOC; 22nd May 2012 at 02:33.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Liam, there is simply no currying of any favors. In fact, it is rather naive to think otherwise. If you don't wish to px on the freighter, don't sign the waiver.
For SMOC, sorry but the Canadian negotiations will be completed in the next few months. There is no benefit to let them drag on.
For SMOC, sorry but the Canadian negotiations will be completed in the next few months. There is no benefit to let them drag on.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt
Kindly afford me the courtesy of reading my posts properly.
This is not about me signing a waiver, this is about you not having a waiver to sign! This is about the scenario where the YVR and SYD based pilots, who have not been given a waiver a sign, are rostered to PX on the freighter post 1st July, particularly on the contentious DAC-HAN-HKG patterns.
This is about the possibility that the YVR and SYD crews are forced into a scenario where they are acting against the interests of the rest of the pilot group. This is about one group of pilots depowering the leverage of another group.
My question still remains unanswered, back to you.....
This is not about me signing a waiver, this is about you not having a waiver to sign! This is about the scenario where the YVR and SYD based pilots, who have not been given a waiver a sign, are rostered to PX on the freighter post 1st July, particularly on the contentious DAC-HAN-HKG patterns.
This is about the possibility that the YVR and SYD crews are forced into a scenario where they are acting against the interests of the rest of the pilot group. This is about one group of pilots depowering the leverage of another group.
My question still remains unanswered, back to you.....
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 22nd May 2012 at 08:59.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Communication is the root of the world's problems.
At the risk of sounding like a troll, may I ask why almost every single thread ends up in a sh** throwing session where two, three, or four guys fight over what they 'really' meant to say? Seriously, I'm genuinely curious. Why? Is it just poor communication skills? Lack of writing ability? Laziness? Stupidity, perhaps? Whatever the reason, it always seems to be the same stupid people going at it about [who] meant what, or [what] someone really meant to say. Oh please! Why not just get a room together, so you can settle your differences the way normal married couples do. At least that way someone has a real chance of getting satisfaction from all those hours, minutes, an seconds wasted typing, editing, arguing over all the aforementioned crap. 
But by all means, don't let me stop you now, please keep embarrassing yourselves. At the very least, it's FREE entertainment for everyone else at YOUR EXPENSE.
But by all means, don't let me stop you now, please keep embarrassing yourselves. At the very least, it's FREE entertainment for everyone else at YOUR EXPENSE.
Last edited by FreqFlyer001; 22nd May 2012 at 05:05.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Liam I did answer your question earlier. Remember that during negotiations CX cannot undermine your contract or facilitate change during negotiations.
I think it has been agreed by all parties, CX included, that having a pilot px on the freighter without their consent contravenes the COS. That is why CX has had the other groups sign a waiver.
Hey, I thought this was a rumour forum, or for the intellectually challenged a forum for anonymous name calling, not a personal help line. But what the heck, I like to help. If you are rostered to px on the freighter advise CC that you do not want to and insist they take you off. If they don't, I suggest you refer the matter to the union.
I think it has been agreed by all parties, CX included, that having a pilot px on the freighter without their consent contravenes the COS. That is why CX has had the other groups sign a waiver.
Hey, I thought this was a rumour forum, or for the intellectually challenged a forum for anonymous name calling, not a personal help line. But what the heck, I like to help. If you are rostered to px on the freighter advise CC that you do not want to and insist they take you off. If they don't, I suggest you refer the matter to the union.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For FreqFlyer001,
The short answer is because many here have nothing of substance to offer. Because they cannot put two relevant thoughts together in a sentence, calling someone names gives them that sense of bravado. I can assume that at least their wives are proud of them.
The short answer is because many here have nothing of substance to offer. Because they cannot put two relevant thoughts together in a sentence, calling someone names gives them that sense of bravado. I can assume that at least their wives are proud of them.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcoastcapt
I am starting to share Freqflyer001 frustrations.
You are very determined to not understand this. I have never sought advice about my position as I am perfectly comfortable about what happens to me on the July roster. I wont be signing the waiver and I won't be PX'ed on the Freighter.
However, what about you (assuming you are YVR based), will you be PX' ing on the Freighter?
Despite what is in your COS, CX has been PX' ing both the SYD and YVR crews during the whole negotiation process, what makes you think that will stop on the 1st July? In the GMA's recent email, where does he say the YVR and SYD crews won't be PX'ed on the Freighter from the 1st July?
Perhaps it is time for another YVR or SYD based pilot to post on this thread and get this debate back on the rails.
You are very determined to not understand this. I have never sought advice about my position as I am perfectly comfortable about what happens to me on the July roster. I wont be signing the waiver and I won't be PX'ed on the Freighter.
However, what about you (assuming you are YVR based), will you be PX' ing on the Freighter?
Despite what is in your COS, CX has been PX' ing both the SYD and YVR crews during the whole negotiation process, what makes you think that will stop on the 1st July? In the GMA's recent email, where does he say the YVR and SYD crews won't be PX'ed on the Freighter from the 1st July?
Perhaps it is time for another YVR or SYD based pilot to post on this thread and get this debate back on the rails.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: N. America
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam, I don't see what's unclear about Westcoastcapt's claims. Just like everyone else, it's in our COS not to PX on the freighter. I would think the GMA mentioned "TBD" because the CBA is currently in negotiation, therefore he (nor anyone else) can say for certain what will happen when the CBA is finalized. For the time being, however, PXing on the frieghter is against our COS. You claim some folks are doing it, which I cannot dispute, but AFAIK there is nothing to stop said individuals from refusing to do so. I see no change to the status quo come July 1st (in fact, legally, there CAN'T be a change, given the aforementioned negotiations).
Last edited by Mooseflyer; 23rd May 2012 at 01:35.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooseflyer
I don't know what planet you and Westcoastcapt have been living on, however I suspect it is a planet that doesn't involve 747s and AOA membership.
Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing.
1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".
2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.
3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.
4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?
5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.
6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.
Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.
It would be nice if the next post was from an OZ or Canadian based pilot who has an educated view on their position..... Please.....
Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing.
1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".
2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.
3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.
4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?
5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.
6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.
Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.
It would be nice if the next post was from an OZ or Canadian based pilot who has an educated view on their position..... Please.....
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 23rd May 2012 at 05:54.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MARS
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing. (LIAM GALLAGHER)
1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".
Wrong: Fly as ordered - yes, PX as ordered - NO (breach of contract, see other discussions);
2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.
Wrong: Proposal was not rejected, it was simply ignored by the company, in the hopes that the "problem" would go away;
3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.
Wrong: 3 D&G's were held, all concluded that freighter PX is in breach of CoS, all 3 pilots continued to be rostered to PX on freighters against their CoS;
4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?
Wrong: No poll has been conducted amongst union members re 1:1 credit, 530 members (sic) protested against breach of contract by signing an en masse objection against freighter PX (the rest just couldn't or wouldn't be bothered);
5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.
Correct: Uncertain, but 3 options remain: ask to operate the sector, ask to PX on a passenger a/c, ask the duty to be changed. File an individual D&G;
6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.
Wrong: OZ and Canada have REAL Labour Laws which makes forcing a change of CoS - illegal
Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.
Correct: although a polite request to change to a PX on a passenger a/c is given wherever it's possible, otherwise, see 5 above.
1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".
Wrong: Fly as ordered - yes, PX as ordered - NO (breach of contract, see other discussions);
2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.
Wrong: Proposal was not rejected, it was simply ignored by the company, in the hopes that the "problem" would go away;
3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.
Wrong: 3 D&G's were held, all concluded that freighter PX is in breach of CoS, all 3 pilots continued to be rostered to PX on freighters against their CoS;
4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?
Wrong: No poll has been conducted amongst union members re 1:1 credit, 530 members (sic) protested against breach of contract by signing an en masse objection against freighter PX (the rest just couldn't or wouldn't be bothered);
5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.
Correct: Uncertain, but 3 options remain: ask to operate the sector, ask to PX on a passenger a/c, ask the duty to be changed. File an individual D&G;
6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.
Wrong: OZ and Canada have REAL Labour Laws which makes forcing a change of CoS - illegal
Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.
Correct: although a polite request to change to a PX on a passenger a/c is given wherever it's possible, otherwise, see 5 above.
Last edited by AD POSSE AD ESSE; 23rd May 2012 at 07:40.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: just floating about
Age: 54
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam
I think you will find that the company cannot deal directly with AUS and CAN members, they must deal through the representative body. They will negotiate at the bargaining table. I guess until then it's ops normal. No deadline for these based guys.
I think you will find that the company cannot deal directly with AUS and CAN members, they must deal through the representative body. They will negotiate at the bargaining table. I guess until then it's ops normal. No deadline for these based guys.
