Cathay To Close Bases
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ad posee
I do not wish to get into a p!ssing contest with you and rather than dissect your comments line by line I wish to focus on your statement that the D&Gs upheld that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS and how this relates to on-shoring.
Firstly, in his email the GMA makes no admission regarding our COS. I have not read the exact basis of the CP747 D&G decisions. However, I am prepared to accept, for the sake of this debate, that the 747 Fleet Office ruled that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS.
You and many others trumpet the virtue of Canadian and OZ labour laws. To the best of my knowledge, and I am sure that you and many others will shout "wrong" if this is not true, Canadian and OZ pilots have been rostered to PX on the Freighter for the past decade and throughout the entire on-shoring process. They may not have liked it, nor agreed it, but it has happened in clear and willful breach of their COS despite these gilt-edged and First-World labour laws.
Now you and many others blandly say that the COS cannot be changed during on-shoring. That maybe so, however this is not a matter of changing the COS, but upholding and adhering to the COS. Alternatively, are you arguing that because the company abused the COS before on-shoring, they can do so during on-shoring. Is this really what First-World good faith labour bargaining looks like?
Finally, you shouted "wrong" when I said the position of the OZ and Canadian pilots on 1 July is unclear. I paraphrased that straight out of the GMA's email. So please enlighten me, where in GMA's email does he say that the OZ and Canadian crews will not continue to be Freighter PX'ed post 1st July?
PS. As to your final remark about the " polite request". How much did Dicky Hall pay you to write that patronizing nonsense?
Firstly, CC "generously" granting your grovelling request to abide by the terms of your COS probably sees you lose your Credit Hours. Secondly, if you seriously believe this whole issue of poor, inefficient rostering, often resulting in 24+ hours in an aircraft and playing boy scout in the back of a freighter can be resolved by a "polite request", you are delusional. Keep drinking the Koolaid buddy!!
Firstly, in his email the GMA makes no admission regarding our COS. I have not read the exact basis of the CP747 D&G decisions. However, I am prepared to accept, for the sake of this debate, that the 747 Fleet Office ruled that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS.
You and many others trumpet the virtue of Canadian and OZ labour laws. To the best of my knowledge, and I am sure that you and many others will shout "wrong" if this is not true, Canadian and OZ pilots have been rostered to PX on the Freighter for the past decade and throughout the entire on-shoring process. They may not have liked it, nor agreed it, but it has happened in clear and willful breach of their COS despite these gilt-edged and First-World labour laws.
Now you and many others blandly say that the COS cannot be changed during on-shoring. That maybe so, however this is not a matter of changing the COS, but upholding and adhering to the COS. Alternatively, are you arguing that because the company abused the COS before on-shoring, they can do so during on-shoring. Is this really what First-World good faith labour bargaining looks like?
Finally, you shouted "wrong" when I said the position of the OZ and Canadian pilots on 1 July is unclear. I paraphrased that straight out of the GMA's email. So please enlighten me, where in GMA's email does he say that the OZ and Canadian crews will not continue to be Freighter PX'ed post 1st July?
PS. As to your final remark about the " polite request". How much did Dicky Hall pay you to write that patronizing nonsense?
Firstly, CC "generously" granting your grovelling request to abide by the terms of your COS probably sees you lose your Credit Hours. Secondly, if you seriously believe this whole issue of poor, inefficient rostering, often resulting in 24+ hours in an aircraft and playing boy scout in the back of a freighter can be resolved by a "polite request", you are delusional. Keep drinking the Koolaid buddy!!
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 24th May 2012 at 06:02.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the pay on the freighter less than PAX flt? Can anyone confirm the content of this article? Cathay Pacific makes pay raise offer to pilots after ?work to rule? threat: report - Taipei Times
Last edited by airgent; 24th May 2012 at 03:29.
Right, now let me put this crap thread to bed once and for all.
I was talking to two project managers with our Cathay construction company last night who are in charge ( big bosses ) of the new Cargo terminal construction and who WILL be building the new extension to the Headland Hotel. They will start later this year early next and double the size of the hotel with a new wing up to approx 28 stories high.
Why I ask? Well because of the bases and a requirement to add extra rooms.
Cathay ARE NOT CLOSING BASES. Don't fall for stupid rumors and subtle threats.
I was talking to two project managers with our Cathay construction company last night who are in charge ( big bosses ) of the new Cargo terminal construction and who WILL be building the new extension to the Headland Hotel. They will start later this year early next and double the size of the hotel with a new wing up to approx 28 stories high.
Why I ask? Well because of the bases and a requirement to add extra rooms.
Cathay ARE NOT CLOSING BASES. Don't fall for stupid rumors and subtle threats.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 24th May 2012 at 09:59.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitpicker that could be for cabin crew though. Their crew bases have worked well and no doubt will be expanding more. Even adding one flight of based cabin crew means a sudden influx of crews staying two nights meaning another 30 rooms per night.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Happy Valley
Age: 48
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apology??
Baywatcher in response to my opening post in this thread you replied:
Utter bull****!
Sadly my deductions have proved correct, feel free to PM your apology anytime............
Utter bull****!
Sadly my deductions have proved correct, feel free to PM your apology anytime............
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Table for 1
Here's a good game:-
Post Random, glass half empty, persecution complex driven, obviously feasible (but with no factual basis) conspiracy theories to get the usual suspects to churn out the usual stuff. THEN!! If your No. comes up even vaguely, (not all bases, wrong date) claim PPRUNE Sagehood status
(If a thousand monkeys type on PPRUNE for long enough, complete Works of Shakespeare results theory).
Time for a cold one......
Post Random, glass half empty, persecution complex driven, obviously feasible (but with no factual basis) conspiracy theories to get the usual suspects to churn out the usual stuff. THEN!! If your No. comes up even vaguely, (not all bases, wrong date) claim PPRUNE Sagehood status
(If a thousand monkeys type on PPRUNE for long enough, complete Works of Shakespeare results theory).
Time for a cold one......
Last edited by White None; 16th Jun 2012 at 08:29.
Nah not really....
But, I fail to see why after paying out considerable LSL entitlements under their obligations they would then decide to close the Oz base with the associated huge cost of 200 Pilots returning to HK with full expat benefits........This would be akin to closing the door after the Horse has already bolted....
Crazy, then again no one ever said they act logically.
But, I fail to see why after paying out considerable LSL entitlements under their obligations they would then decide to close the Oz base with the associated huge cost of 200 Pilots returning to HK with full expat benefits........This would be akin to closing the door after the Horse has already bolted....
Crazy, then again no one ever said they act logically.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 16th Jun 2012 at 08:39.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
huge cost of 200 Pilots returning to HK with full expat benefits.
The considerable LSL entitlements were required paid -and backpaid- the day they onshored Oz; regardless of their subsequent actions which may (or may not) include the closure of Oz alltoghether.
You can't shut down a base in the middle of negotiations... THAT would be bad faith. Once completed, however, they might wanna ensure that not one single more day of LSL entitlement incurs...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see why MAN or LON would close, from what I believe, the tax authorities and local terms and conditions of the contracts were sorted back in 2008. Perhaps CDG was similar to the AMS case and the local terms and conditions required for a proper on-shored contract would have been too much in favour of the employee, with various sick leave entitlements etc, so I guess Cathay didn't like this with other reasons decided to close the base. Not sure on the complete reasons to close the base yet but it can't be due to a lack of flights because the double daily flight starts up again soon and the Freight only reduces to 3x weekly so it must be to do with on-shoring.