U still wan't to Scab
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U still wan't to Scab
As I said before, it is an IFALPA ban . I cannot care what the boys at CX say, I am lead in my desicion by IFALPA.
International Airline Pilot Body Condemns Hong Kong Cathay Over Dispute
HONG KONG -(Dow Jones)- An international airline pilot labor organization Tuesday condemned Hong Kong 's Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (H.CPA) and its parent Swire Pacific Ltd. (H.SWP) for "unjust" treatment of their pilots.
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, or IFALPA, passed a resolution at its 57th annual conference urging Cathay to agree to an independent mediator to discuss the airline's firing of 51 pilots last year following an industrial action.
Cathay pilots, unhappy with pay and rostering practices, began a "go-slow" work campaign last July after talks with management broke down.
"Be it resolved that the entire body of the IFALPA condemns in the strongest possible terms the actions of Cathay Pacific Airways management and its parent company, the Swire Group, for their unjust actions during the dispute," the IFALPA resolution said.
Swire Pacific owns 45% of Cathay. No specific actions were mentioned in the resolution.
IFALPA's resolution calling for mediation follows a similar demand made April 25 by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association. Cathay rejected that proposal, the HKAOA said in a statement.
Also last month IFALPA won International Labour Organization agreement to investigate the dispute between Cathay and the HKAOA union.
International Airline Pilot Body Condemns Hong Kong Cathay Over Dispute
HONG KONG -(Dow Jones)- An international airline pilot labor organization Tuesday condemned Hong Kong 's Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (H.CPA) and its parent Swire Pacific Ltd. (H.SWP) for "unjust" treatment of their pilots.
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, or IFALPA, passed a resolution at its 57th annual conference urging Cathay to agree to an independent mediator to discuss the airline's firing of 51 pilots last year following an industrial action.
Cathay pilots, unhappy with pay and rostering practices, began a "go-slow" work campaign last July after talks with management broke down.
"Be it resolved that the entire body of the IFALPA condemns in the strongest possible terms the actions of Cathay Pacific Airways management and its parent company, the Swire Group, for their unjust actions during the dispute," the IFALPA resolution said.
Swire Pacific owns 45% of Cathay. No specific actions were mentioned in the resolution.
IFALPA's resolution calling for mediation follows a similar demand made April 25 by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association. Cathay rejected that proposal, the HKAOA said in a statement.
Also last month IFALPA won International Labour Organization agreement to investigate the dispute between Cathay and the HKAOA union.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Land of plantains
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that IFALPA resolution does not say anything about supporting a "hiring ban", or about intentional discriminatory practices against other pilots....., seems to me targeting pilots with no jobs would be kind of illegal; somewhat resembles the attitude some people here question about their management's practices.
Last time I checked with an ALPA rep, which by the way are also part of IFALPA, a hiring ban or something like it would only be supported if there is a strike in effect!
Now, about that scab list that you guys are so proud of...
Cheers
Last time I checked with an ALPA rep, which by the way are also part of IFALPA, a hiring ban or something like it would only be supported if there is a strike in effect!
Now, about that scab list that you guys are so proud of...
Cheers
Last edited by southflyer; 11th May 2006 at 21:10.
Congratulations Guys!
You have sucessfully taken the focus off the company and found yourself a group to blame for your problems! Just think, in a years time you'll be able to say to the 49ers "Sure, we didn't risk OUR jobs by striking,and ok, maybe we took YOUR jobs by taking upgrades, but we DID have a recruitment ban, and it would have worked IF it hadn't been for those damed S@@@S!!"
Well IF my Uncle had T@@S he'd be my Aunty! People were ALWAYS going to join under the ban, and formulating a strategy that assumed otherwise was simply foolhardy.
All your list proves is that your strategy isn't working! Some of you (Notably frankg) seem to be taking some sort of perverted joy in lining the guys who took jobs up for retribution. How will that help your cause? You put these guys in an untenable position and then hate them when they go the way thay feeds their families.
Not having a job is the worst thing in the world for ANYBODY, let alone a group who love their proffestion as much as pilots. Isn't fear of unemployment the reason you haven't gone on strike?Isn't that why what has happened to the 49ers is such a tragedy? Yet you won't even stop your EMPLOYED members being PROMOTED, whilst you target and vilify people who just want to start at the bottom and get a JOB!
The more names on your list, the less Cathay employees are in the HKAOA, the less power your union has, and the more confident potential Cathay pilots will be that they will have support in HK if they defy the ban.
"Union" means "A coming together", all yours is doing is creating a divide.
You have sucessfully taken the focus off the company and found yourself a group to blame for your problems! Just think, in a years time you'll be able to say to the 49ers "Sure, we didn't risk OUR jobs by striking,and ok, maybe we took YOUR jobs by taking upgrades, but we DID have a recruitment ban, and it would have worked IF it hadn't been for those damed S@@@S!!"
Well IF my Uncle had T@@S he'd be my Aunty! People were ALWAYS going to join under the ban, and formulating a strategy that assumed otherwise was simply foolhardy.
All your list proves is that your strategy isn't working! Some of you (Notably frankg) seem to be taking some sort of perverted joy in lining the guys who took jobs up for retribution. How will that help your cause? You put these guys in an untenable position and then hate them when they go the way thay feeds their families.
Not having a job is the worst thing in the world for ANYBODY, let alone a group who love their proffestion as much as pilots. Isn't fear of unemployment the reason you haven't gone on strike?Isn't that why what has happened to the 49ers is such a tragedy? Yet you won't even stop your EMPLOYED members being PROMOTED, whilst you target and vilify people who just want to start at the bottom and get a JOB!
The more names on your list, the less Cathay employees are in the HKAOA, the less power your union has, and the more confident potential Cathay pilots will be that they will have support in HK if they defy the ban.
"Union" means "A coming together", all yours is doing is creating a divide.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 8th May 2002 at 03:24.
Hey that website is a very unimpressive exhibit.
Many people were sympathetic to the HKAOA problems but crap like that does you no favours.
No matter how you justify it, for balance you MUST publish names and phone numbers of everybody taking upgrades. Better than that, remove the site completely.
Don't divide yourselves further.
Many people were sympathetic to the HKAOA problems but crap like that does you no favours.
No matter how you justify it, for balance you MUST publish names and phone numbers of everybody taking upgrades. Better than that, remove the site completely.
Don't divide yourselves further.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: nowhereinparticular
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know one of the people on the list. He's a good bloke, was interviewed etc before the ban started, but because his course date was after the imposition of the ban he is now branded. Doesn't quite compute. He also voluntarily contributes 5% (or whatever everyone else is) of his salary to the 49ers fund.
Other mates of mine up there don't agree with the ban. All it is doing is preventing good people from joining the company while others who are less desirable will take the job anyway.
Shouldn't the list also mention all the other scabs from previous disputes, such as the job thieves from Qantas NZ's lockout of '99 who got into Cathay before the ban, after QFNZ went under last year? They and their ilk are the true low-lifes in this industry. If only there was a way to get rid of them...?
Good luck to all good people at Cathay. Being labelled a scab, for whatever reason - right or wrong - is a bad, bad thing to bring upon yourself IMHO, a big no-no
Other mates of mine up there don't agree with the ban. All it is doing is preventing good people from joining the company while others who are less desirable will take the job anyway.
Shouldn't the list also mention all the other scabs from previous disputes, such as the job thieves from Qantas NZ's lockout of '99 who got into Cathay before the ban, after QFNZ went under last year? They and their ilk are the true low-lifes in this industry. If only there was a way to get rid of them...?
Good luck to all good people at Cathay. Being labelled a scab, for whatever reason - right or wrong - is a bad, bad thing to bring upon yourself IMHO, a big no-no
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The recruitment of new hire Second/First Officers issue is one that I have been in doubt about since its inception. My posts from last year will verify my stance, and it is becoming even more obvious under today`s changed aviation environment that this ban might be reviewed.
To revoke it would NOT be seen as a backing off by IFALPA and the HKAOA, but rather a demonstration of their flexibility, ability, and willingness to alter course according to changing circumstances - something that CX "management" are accused of being INCAPABLE of doing.
A "scab list" is something that must not be allowed to lose its true meaning, nor the term "scab" applied lightly, which is unfortunately what I feel IS happening in the current Cathay situation.
IFALPA and the HKAOA need to consider the effects on pilots OTHER than just the CX pilots and try to win their support as well - something that is obviously NOT being achieved if one reads some of the very eloquent arguments posted against the ban. The posters - far from saying "#*x# you!!" - are trying to present reasoned arguments as to why they should be allowed to join CX with the SUPPORT of IFALPA and the HKAOA.
Now may well be a good time to recall the old Chinese analogy of the oak and the willow trees, or the Western proverb of the father, his sons and the pieces of wood.
United we stand - one by one we`re easily snapped.
Open your eyes and ears, and open your mind.
To revoke it would NOT be seen as a backing off by IFALPA and the HKAOA, but rather a demonstration of their flexibility, ability, and willingness to alter course according to changing circumstances - something that CX "management" are accused of being INCAPABLE of doing.
A "scab list" is something that must not be allowed to lose its true meaning, nor the term "scab" applied lightly, which is unfortunately what I feel IS happening in the current Cathay situation.
IFALPA and the HKAOA need to consider the effects on pilots OTHER than just the CX pilots and try to win their support as well - something that is obviously NOT being achieved if one reads some of the very eloquent arguments posted against the ban. The posters - far from saying "#*x# you!!" - are trying to present reasoned arguments as to why they should be allowed to join CX with the SUPPORT of IFALPA and the HKAOA.
Now may well be a good time to recall the old Chinese analogy of the oak and the willow trees, or the Western proverb of the father, his sons and the pieces of wood.
United we stand - one by one we`re easily snapped.
Open your eyes and ears, and open your mind.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N. America
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I was wondering the same thing! Where did it go?
The link, for those who don't know, was entitled "Welcome to Cathay". It was a page (on one of those free sites) purportedly containing the names and in some cases, HK addresses/tels of those who I assume accepted jobs at CX during the ongoing "ban"
I say "assume" because there is no substantiation, no other info, no nothing. Just names of people who we are to consider "scabs" because someone made a list. The kangaroo court is in full session.
The reply-to address listed at the site is also anonymous, in keeping with the courageous tone of the whole site. I hope it wasn't displayed in an effort to garner credibility.
I have spent a great deal of effort trying to remain abreast of the issues over the last year, following the limited resources the HKAOA has made available to the public. One such resource is a video available on their website, in which the head of IFALPA states clearly that they will not stoop to the level of CX management and target individual pilots for retribution. I realize IFALPA has no control over the actions of the HKAOA, in particular individual members.
But I wonder if the jacka$$ who created the site even knows that such actions contravene the words of the organization whose help they've enlisted?
The link, for those who don't know, was entitled "Welcome to Cathay". It was a page (on one of those free sites) purportedly containing the names and in some cases, HK addresses/tels of those who I assume accepted jobs at CX during the ongoing "ban"
I say "assume" because there is no substantiation, no other info, no nothing. Just names of people who we are to consider "scabs" because someone made a list. The kangaroo court is in full session.
The reply-to address listed at the site is also anonymous, in keeping with the courageous tone of the whole site. I hope it wasn't displayed in an effort to garner credibility.
I have spent a great deal of effort trying to remain abreast of the issues over the last year, following the limited resources the HKAOA has made available to the public. One such resource is a video available on their website, in which the head of IFALPA states clearly that they will not stoop to the level of CX management and target individual pilots for retribution. I realize IFALPA has no control over the actions of the HKAOA, in particular individual members.
But I wonder if the jacka$$ who created the site even knows that such actions contravene the words of the organization whose help they've enlisted?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/Leader and PZ
The moderators have probably removed the Post as they realise that the public supply of personal information is illegal and can get them in a lot of trouble especially because that information can only have been obtained through illegal means. Cx are currently attempting to find whos responsible and the 53 will then become 54.
The sad thing about it is how inaccurate the list is, I know of two who joined after the 9/10 and aren't on the list and I know of three on the list who joined before and are.
I hope the coward gets strung up by the ba**s.
The moderators have probably removed the Post as they realise that the public supply of personal information is illegal and can get them in a lot of trouble especially because that information can only have been obtained through illegal means. Cx are currently attempting to find whos responsible and the 53 will then become 54.
The sad thing about it is how inaccurate the list is, I know of two who joined after the 9/10 and aren't on the list and I know of three on the list who joined before and are.
I hope the coward gets strung up by the ba**s.
