So called SCABS
So called SCABS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heartfelt Wishes
My sympathy is with the guys struggling to get a real airline job and provide for their families !!!
CX may be the 1st and only job offer they can get at the moment. Sad to think that after all the years of work they get the job offer of their life to be treated like .......
Tick One :
__ Professional colleagues
__ Competant Aviators
__ s**t
I wish the very best to you all !
CX may be the 1st and only job offer they can get at the moment. Sad to think that after all the years of work they get the job offer of their life to be treated like .......
Tick One :
__ Professional colleagues
__ Competant Aviators
__ s**t
I wish the very best to you all !
Join Date: May 2000
Location: honkers
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captain white
I am professional and competent otherwise I wouldn't be working for Cathay (god, that sounds great doesn't it?) today. If people want to call me names that is their right. I have my friends up here in HK and a lot are not aircrew. I worked hard for my flying qualifications and my daddy didn't pay one red cent towards it now I am continuing my career in the job I have always wanted.
sometimes you have to make hard decisions - this time wasn't one. AOA could be OK but they have to get there house in order. I don't intend to let a union screw my life like they did my brothers. the AFAP like the AOA were OK but they lost direction and were living in a dream world like mr Hopkins
good luck to the 49s and all the new hires up here life will be good once the cobwebs settle.
I am professional and competent otherwise I wouldn't be working for Cathay (god, that sounds great doesn't it?) today. If people want to call me names that is their right. I have my friends up here in HK and a lot are not aircrew. I worked hard for my flying qualifications and my daddy didn't pay one red cent towards it now I am continuing my career in the job I have always wanted.
sometimes you have to make hard decisions - this time wasn't one. AOA could be OK but they have to get there house in order. I don't intend to let a union screw my life like they did my brothers. the AFAP like the AOA were OK but they lost direction and were living in a dream world like mr Hopkins
good luck to the 49s and all the new hires up here life will be good once the cobwebs settle.
TSI,
TRUST ME, having seen the bebarcle of '89 and the never ending fallout, I totaly understand your position, and respect your decision to join.
BUT, the existing Cathay guys and ESPECIALLY the 49ers have real and valid reason to want to take action against the company.
Whilst I disagree with their tactics, and believe that the HKAOA has no right to vilify or ostracise you, I don't think throwing it in their face is wise, helpful or necessary.
Show yourself to be above the pettiness and anger. Do your job well. Be freindly, honest and helpful. Rationaly explain your position when you get the chance.
There will be a percentage of guys you can write off right now from EVER seeing that there is another side to this. But, given time, I think a lot of your new work mates will except you if YOU make an effort to fit in, rather than DEMANDING that they back off.
The company is making all the right noises to you now. Don't count on them looking after you for the whole of your career.
TRUST ME, having seen the bebarcle of '89 and the never ending fallout, I totaly understand your position, and respect your decision to join.
BUT, the existing Cathay guys and ESPECIALLY the 49ers have real and valid reason to want to take action against the company.
Whilst I disagree with their tactics, and believe that the HKAOA has no right to vilify or ostracise you, I don't think throwing it in their face is wise, helpful or necessary.
Show yourself to be above the pettiness and anger. Do your job well. Be freindly, honest and helpful. Rationaly explain your position when you get the chance.
There will be a percentage of guys you can write off right now from EVER seeing that there is another side to this. But, given time, I think a lot of your new work mates will except you if YOU make an effort to fit in, rather than DEMANDING that they back off.
The company is making all the right noises to you now. Don't count on them looking after you for the whole of your career.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Various
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The HKAOA has not “vilified or ostracised” anyone…yet. The Scablists have been produced by some vigilante members and reproduced by K** B***** himself. The HKAOA has officially asked their members to “back off” of the Scabs…for now. The HKAOA is trying to give peace a chance again, but the membership is running out of patience. As previously stated, the Scabs ain't seen nothing yet. This will be a very long career, regardless of the outcome of the dispute.
It is true that the management have stated that they will not stand for any intimidation and they went so far has to introduce some “rules” in vol 1 regarding this matter. Here you have a system where a brand new S/O can walk up to the DFO’s office and “rat” on a Senior Captain for making him feel “uncomfortable” and “intimidated”. Who wants to fly with the Scabs now? Great work environment created by management, isn't it?
It is true that the management have stated that they will not stand for any intimidation and they went so far has to introduce some “rules” in vol 1 regarding this matter. Here you have a system where a brand new S/O can walk up to the DFO’s office and “rat” on a Senior Captain for making him feel “uncomfortable” and “intimidated”. Who wants to fly with the Scabs now? Great work environment created by management, isn't it?
Last edited by Jetdriver; 12th May 2002 at 01:18.
Sand Dune,
No. This is an environment created equally by Cathay Managment, IFALPA, HKAOA and individual hot head pilots.
This is the start of a pretty awful outcome. It was, however, entirely predictable (see my first post on this subject.)
The IFALPA resolution specifically states that pilots joining during the ban would "Not be welcomed" by the HKAOA. That means ostracised, and if you thought it wouldn't also lead to vilification, you were dreaming. Your use of the phrase "Back off the Scabs" is an oxymoron as it is in itself vilifying.
If the HKAOA really wants to "Give peace a chance" it will retrospectively drop the ban and welcome all new-comers into the union.
Anything less will play into managment hands by dividing your working group even further.
No. This is an environment created equally by Cathay Managment, IFALPA, HKAOA and individual hot head pilots.
This is the start of a pretty awful outcome. It was, however, entirely predictable (see my first post on this subject.)
The IFALPA resolution specifically states that pilots joining during the ban would "Not be welcomed" by the HKAOA. That means ostracised, and if you thought it wouldn't also lead to vilification, you were dreaming. Your use of the phrase "Back off the Scabs" is an oxymoron as it is in itself vilifying.
If the HKAOA really wants to "Give peace a chance" it will retrospectively drop the ban and welcome all new-comers into the union.
Anything less will play into managment hands by dividing your working group even further.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Various
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz,
I stand corrected. It might only me semantic, but the leadership of HKAOA has NEVER used the term “Scabs”. The leadership of HKAOA has NEVER produced any “scab” list or initiated any action against the scabs. The leadership of the HKAOA is doing its best to keep the membership on a tight leash and diffuse the situation. They are quite successful at it because the situation is presently VERY CALM (before the storm?) People within the membership initiated certain actions against the scabs, but the leadership of the HKAOA has asked the members to stop any action against the “Replacement Workers” (that’s the term used by the leadership of the HKAOA.) Ken Barley was the first one to use the term “Scabs” in a statement, saying that blacklisting or Scabbing was “Industrial action of the worst kind” (by the way, destroying the career of 50+ Pilots IS industrial action of the worst kind).
The HKAOA is made of 1300 individuals. These individuals have to “vote in” any new members with a majority vote. I think that “retrospectively drop the ban and welcome all new-comers into the union” is wishful thinking. Regardless of what IFALPA or the HKAOA General Committee might recommend to the membership, I can assure you that the “Scabs” will find it very difficult to be “voted in” by ANY Union anywhere in the world.
The IFALPA Recruitment Ban is a REACTION and was put in place THREE MONTHS after the 49ers were wrongfully terminated by MANAGEMENT. MANAGEMENT created this situation. This membership is only trying to protect itself and the 49ers from an ongoing attack on their contract and conditions of service. Without organisations like IFALPA and HKAOA, we would not have any of the things that we all take for granted and that our grand fathers did not have: paid leave, safe working conditions, pension, medical, etc…
If you absolutely want to term the IFALPA Recruitment Ban “ostracising and vilifying” so be it. What terms you will be left with using when the dogs are unleashed and REAL action is taken against the “Replacement workers” (Rhetorical question)
PS. To anyone out there thinking that an upgrade ban is the solution, how would you implement it? Please consider that with an official Upgrade Ban in place, if a member were to “turn down” or “knock back” his upgrade, he would be terminated for no particular reason. Members would be exposed and picked off one by one. This management is ruthless and has to be dealt with in a “guerrilla warfare” fashion. To think otherwise is simply naïve and uneducated. Unless you've been here and seen it, you can not truly appreciate the evil ways of this management.
I stand corrected. It might only me semantic, but the leadership of HKAOA has NEVER used the term “Scabs”. The leadership of HKAOA has NEVER produced any “scab” list or initiated any action against the scabs. The leadership of the HKAOA is doing its best to keep the membership on a tight leash and diffuse the situation. They are quite successful at it because the situation is presently VERY CALM (before the storm?) People within the membership initiated certain actions against the scabs, but the leadership of the HKAOA has asked the members to stop any action against the “Replacement Workers” (that’s the term used by the leadership of the HKAOA.) Ken Barley was the first one to use the term “Scabs” in a statement, saying that blacklisting or Scabbing was “Industrial action of the worst kind” (by the way, destroying the career of 50+ Pilots IS industrial action of the worst kind).
The HKAOA is made of 1300 individuals. These individuals have to “vote in” any new members with a majority vote. I think that “retrospectively drop the ban and welcome all new-comers into the union” is wishful thinking. Regardless of what IFALPA or the HKAOA General Committee might recommend to the membership, I can assure you that the “Scabs” will find it very difficult to be “voted in” by ANY Union anywhere in the world.
The IFALPA Recruitment Ban is a REACTION and was put in place THREE MONTHS after the 49ers were wrongfully terminated by MANAGEMENT. MANAGEMENT created this situation. This membership is only trying to protect itself and the 49ers from an ongoing attack on their contract and conditions of service. Without organisations like IFALPA and HKAOA, we would not have any of the things that we all take for granted and that our grand fathers did not have: paid leave, safe working conditions, pension, medical, etc…
If you absolutely want to term the IFALPA Recruitment Ban “ostracising and vilifying” so be it. What terms you will be left with using when the dogs are unleashed and REAL action is taken against the “Replacement workers” (Rhetorical question)
PS. To anyone out there thinking that an upgrade ban is the solution, how would you implement it? Please consider that with an official Upgrade Ban in place, if a member were to “turn down” or “knock back” his upgrade, he would be terminated for no particular reason. Members would be exposed and picked off one by one. This management is ruthless and has to be dealt with in a “guerrilla warfare” fashion. To think otherwise is simply naïve and uneducated. Unless you've been here and seen it, you can not truly appreciate the evil ways of this management.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So called Scabs
Sand Dune you are not for real. Once again you convince the hoi polloi of the complete hypocrisy of the AOA. You are not making any sense at all. AOA members accepting upgrades and promotions - to their financial and professional benefit - because they are scared they would be terminated if not accepting same. Sitting in 49ers seats whilst those seats are still warm. Yet these same hypocrites expect aircrew outside the union not to take employment with CX to those persons financial and professional detriment. You can be sure that those who knock CX back now because of the ban will not on the first mail call when this farsical ban is ended.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
What would be the outcome if ALL the Training Captains were to resign their training position?
Is that a feasible suggestion, or are there enough non-AOA captains to replace them?
Is that a feasible suggestion, or are there enough non-AOA captains to replace them?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know it's funny, there is the very same IFALPA Recuitment Ban at an airline in South America. Nobody seems very upset about that. Maybe it's because they don't pay as much. So that's what it's all about, selling out to the highest bidder.
That airline in South America is pulling the same **** as CX. Fired a whole lot more guys, you aren't bleeting about their ban. You aren't busting down their door to get a job, should be some openings I would think. Probably just doesn't pay enough to warrant the moral arguments that seem to come up hear.
That airline in South America is pulling the same **** as CX. Fired a whole lot more guys, you aren't bleeting about their ban. You aren't busting down their door to get a job, should be some openings I would think. Probably just doesn't pay enough to warrant the moral arguments that seem to come up hear.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a work visa might also be a small consideration. Raising your children in a place not very pleasant might be another. Not a very sensible option for those unemployed I would think. And yes there is a ban in place by IFALPA, they have forever in my view lost credibility because of that support for a Claytons ban.
frankg....."It doesn't matter what you say. There is a ban in place. If you join CX now, your name is going on a list, it's that simple. No amount of whining here will get it removed"
------------------------------------
frank........I've read and agreed with most of your posts for a long time now - especially in response to the demented Cessna lover from the desert.
HOWEVER I fear you're getting myopic. The same logic you're applying to the young new joiners struggling to get out of GA etc MUST be applied to those taking upgrades. No amount of twisting logic will change that fact.
Upgraders are DIRECTLY taking the jobs of the '49ers. If you tag the young guys with the title then you simply MUST label all upgraders as scabs.......no twisting logic will change this fact.
CX management should not feel proud of this situation they have helped create, it is an embarrasment to them and as time and history will certainly prove, will devalue Cathay and their own careers which is all they care for. The HKAOA should be ashamed of themselves also. By alienating new joiners they are dividing themselves and the path they are taking at present is only going to lead to the permanent marginalising of the union.
Something assertive needs to be done now, be it a 'face-saving' leadership change or a deadline for re-instatement of the '49ers or whatever. But this meandering industrial weakness is rapidly making you guys an irrelevance.
Many people are on your side here but you are losing or have lost the momentum.
Taking your aggression out on some poor young new joiner is pathetic however and conveniently forgetting to label upgraders as scabs is disgraceful.
Time to get your collective heads out of the sand, concentrate on the big picture, act decisevely and fix up the mess you are in.
The result is not going to be as you would have liked but if you don't do something decisive ans soon, the result will be terrible
------------------------------------
frank........I've read and agreed with most of your posts for a long time now - especially in response to the demented Cessna lover from the desert.
HOWEVER I fear you're getting myopic. The same logic you're applying to the young new joiners struggling to get out of GA etc MUST be applied to those taking upgrades. No amount of twisting logic will change that fact.
Upgraders are DIRECTLY taking the jobs of the '49ers. If you tag the young guys with the title then you simply MUST label all upgraders as scabs.......no twisting logic will change this fact.
CX management should not feel proud of this situation they have helped create, it is an embarrasment to them and as time and history will certainly prove, will devalue Cathay and their own careers which is all they care for. The HKAOA should be ashamed of themselves also. By alienating new joiners they are dividing themselves and the path they are taking at present is only going to lead to the permanent marginalising of the union.
Something assertive needs to be done now, be it a 'face-saving' leadership change or a deadline for re-instatement of the '49ers or whatever. But this meandering industrial weakness is rapidly making you guys an irrelevance.
Many people are on your side here but you are losing or have lost the momentum.
Taking your aggression out on some poor young new joiner is pathetic however and conveniently forgetting to label upgraders as scabs is disgraceful.
Time to get your collective heads out of the sand, concentrate on the big picture, act decisevely and fix up the mess you are in.
The result is not going to be as you would have liked but if you don't do something decisive ans soon, the result will be terrible
Frankg,
If an explanation has been put forward as to why an upgrade ban is not effective, I must have missed it. The only explanations put forward on this forum have been that it is too big a sacrifice, and that it may lead to more sackings (again, Cathay pilots not willing to make sacrifices they expect others to make on their behalf.)
It's not fair, but you support it. If I said the sacking of the 49ers wasn't fair, but I supported it, it would no doubt incur your wrath.
Unfair is unfair. You have stated, rather menacingly, that anybody chosing not to be dealt with in a way you admit is unfair is "To be put on a list". But you don't want a list published because you understand that the shear hypocricy of such an act would undermine your position.
If you think the ban is unfair and ineffective, for christ sake be a man and stand up for people you know are being unfairly victimised. Just because an action is the direction of a Union does not make it beyond accountability to civilised standards. "I was just following orders" has been used in the past.
YOU are responsible for thr outcome of your actions, be they individual, or as a member of a group. Don't hide behind "There was a ban in place" when the consequences blow up in your face.
By the way, I sent an email objecting to the ban. It was not published along side the "Support From Around The World"
Don't take edited propaganda as proof of your position.
If an explanation has been put forward as to why an upgrade ban is not effective, I must have missed it. The only explanations put forward on this forum have been that it is too big a sacrifice, and that it may lead to more sackings (again, Cathay pilots not willing to make sacrifices they expect others to make on their behalf.)
It's not fair, but you support it. If I said the sacking of the 49ers wasn't fair, but I supported it, it would no doubt incur your wrath.
Unfair is unfair. You have stated, rather menacingly, that anybody chosing not to be dealt with in a way you admit is unfair is "To be put on a list". But you don't want a list published because you understand that the shear hypocricy of such an act would undermine your position.
If you think the ban is unfair and ineffective, for christ sake be a man and stand up for people you know are being unfairly victimised. Just because an action is the direction of a Union does not make it beyond accountability to civilised standards. "I was just following orders" has been used in the past.
YOU are responsible for thr outcome of your actions, be they individual, or as a member of a group. Don't hide behind "There was a ban in place" when the consequences blow up in your face.
By the way, I sent an email objecting to the ban. It was not published along side the "Support From Around The World"
Don't take edited propaganda as proof of your position.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, I must agree that unfair is unfair. All sorts of tenuous analogies being used in support of this Claytons ban. This union lost it for me when it supported the break up of the pilot body in Cathay. You may delude yourself that more militant action will lead to a positive outcome for you but, in reality, given the fragmented state of pilots in Cathay further action will only lead to more dismissals and will not be successful. Sure the bottom line will bend a bit, sure the travelling public will be disadvantaged again. The aircraft will keep flying and the union will go down the gurgler. You must take whatever steps are necessary, however difficult, however humbling to get back to the table.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shortly, your location says Hong Kong. If that is true you are up a bit late! Are you with CX? The reason I ask is because anyone close to this thing knows that the union is prepared to talk, anytime, anywhere. They have requested repeated meetings but continually get stonewalled.
It's the company that won't humble themselves to come back to the table. That would signal the end of their attempt at a union bust. Once they realise they aren't going to bust the union then they will talk, they'll have no choice.
It's the company that won't humble themselves to come back to the table. That would signal the end of their attempt at a union bust. Once they realise they aren't going to bust the union then they will talk, they'll have no choice.
6ft.....this is the problem....they ARE breaking the union.
This inneffectual situation is just bypassing the HKAOA altogether.
Every day people resign from the union and potential new-joiners are victimised.
The 49'ers are never going to get their jobs back, that much should be evident by now. You need to sit down and reassess the make-up of the Committee and regain some credibility and relevance.
There is still a small window of opportunity available whilst you have unity but the window and the unity are diminishing daily.
This inneffectual situation is just bypassing the HKAOA altogether.
Every day people resign from the union and potential new-joiners are victimised.
The 49'ers are never going to get their jobs back, that much should be evident by now. You need to sit down and reassess the make-up of the Committee and regain some credibility and relevance.
There is still a small window of opportunity available whilst you have unity but the window and the unity are diminishing daily.
Whispering "T" Jet
Unfortunately the "lockout" tactic used by Companies involved in industrial disputes usually results in the union coming off second best. If management doesn't need/want to talk to the union then there is not much the union can do about it.
I witnessed the same tactics in the '89 Pilot's Dispute in Australia. The on going pleading by Brian Mac. about "all we want to do is talk to the Companies". Abeles and Co. just went about their business of "re-building" the airlines using all available resources. This included hiring foreign labour, local GA and former employees. A sad day for aviation in Australia but at the end of the day the Company got it's way and the Federation of Air Pilots was crushed as an effective union.
The situation in Hong Kong and Cathay Pacific is, IMHO, headed the same way. You have a management who refuses to talk to it's employees and a union that has no effective way of countering that situation. The recruitment ban is futile and no more than nuisance value to Cathay. They appear to be still getting pilots and will continue to do so as more people join up. As with the '89 dispute, the new hires are not welcomed into the union, therefore further weakening it's (HKAOA) industrial position.
Having been there and done that, I know what you guys are going through and am sorry I can't offer a solution. Having gone over (and over and over and over) what happened to us in '89 and still can't come up with "where we went wrong", I can only wish you all the very best of luck.
I witnessed the same tactics in the '89 Pilot's Dispute in Australia. The on going pleading by Brian Mac. about "all we want to do is talk to the Companies". Abeles and Co. just went about their business of "re-building" the airlines using all available resources. This included hiring foreign labour, local GA and former employees. A sad day for aviation in Australia but at the end of the day the Company got it's way and the Federation of Air Pilots was crushed as an effective union.
The situation in Hong Kong and Cathay Pacific is, IMHO, headed the same way. You have a management who refuses to talk to it's employees and a union that has no effective way of countering that situation. The recruitment ban is futile and no more than nuisance value to Cathay. They appear to be still getting pilots and will continue to do so as more people join up. As with the '89 dispute, the new hires are not welcomed into the union, therefore further weakening it's (HKAOA) industrial position.
Having been there and done that, I know what you guys are going through and am sorry I can't offer a solution. Having gone over (and over and over and over) what happened to us in '89 and still can't come up with "where we went wrong", I can only wish you all the very best of luck.