Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

CHAIRMAN CUTTING A DEAL

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

CHAIRMAN CUTTING A DEAL

Old 15th Jan 2019, 06:39
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: planet ****witt
Age: 33
Posts: 37
Sorry but we need to stop the Bull Shit. Numerocruncho is trying to justify why you are getting a piece of crap offer. If your leverage is proportional to the quality of the offer then you are being sold short. One of the duties of your representation is to take responsibility and be accountable. They are tasked with increasing the leverage of the membership and acting in your best interests. Unfortunately since the lame duck Sprinkle Soligo has taken over he has done nothing to escalate CC. In fact he has only worked with the company to provide concessions amongst the pilots, HPE was a prime example where he was committing an astronomical amount of concessions that would have cost you well over a Billion dollars, yes that's with a "B" BILLION. However the GC was not blind to this and realized that there was no way in hell the membership would ever vote for such a pathetic offer and HPE failed miserably costing the AOA millions in the process.

Fast forward to today and now you are presented with another concessionary piece of shit offer which was facilitated by the lame duck Chairman. He has not acted in your best interests and has let the CC strategy weaken as a result. The special levy was meant to be used as a tool to increase the pressure but then it was only used to fill the coffers of the association. When it comes to credibility you would be hard pressed to find any in the leadership. It is rumored that he even lied about resigning from training. Other questions have been raised about his status while on sick leave. Was he compromised and is he fit to lead the 2400 members of the HKAOA?

I would like to see a leader who would not present an offer to the members when it falls significantly short of an acceptable offer.

Another quote that was made at the focus night was from Daryl, he said it takes courage to say yes. How about it takes courage to lead.

So RL please stop trying to spin this crap because deep down you know it is wrong and unacceptable.

Last edited by reazasassain; 15th Jan 2019 at 07:09.
reazasassain is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 06:59
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lav
Posts: 77
Amen. The fish rots from the head.
Amber Vibes is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 15:51
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 311
Amen to the Assassin
Flying Clog is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 17:11
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 622
The strongest I have seen the union, in my time here anyway, was 2001. We had around 94-95% membership. We had a 92% YES vote for limited industrial action(LIA) - it was for the Maximum Safety Strategy(MSS). MSS was basically a go slow campaign.
I can tell you as I analysed the results in real time back in 2001 that the response was very underwhelming. As in, the increase in 15+min delays was barely into double digits. So whilst many talk the talk, few walk the walk. I was an FO at the time and I did my part - but the CNs I flew with mostly didn't.
Now given that incredible strength and unity, we waited another 7 years for a payrise(for B scales - none for A obviously) and even that was imposed(2008).

Now why was that? Well - three main factors.
1) the 49ers definitely took the wind out of the sails of many - especially most of the captains i flew with
2) we gradually lost membeship from mid 90s to 50% a few years later due to high subs(to support the 49ers) and the recruitment ban(obvsiously they couldn't join)
3) and by far the most important, bad timing - 9-11 happened two months after.

So why am I bringing this up - because right now we have a shit situation. Whether the yes or no vote prevails there are many suggesting they are leaving the AOA.

So that gives us point 2
Point 1 - I would suggest from survey results I have seen and talking to many, the membership is NOT as militant or cohesive as we were in 2001. So if it is NO, what is the plan?
Point 3 - what is the wild card? A downturn due to the US/China trade dispute? HNA going bankrupt with lots of pilots looking for jobs on COS18? Who knows - hopefully nothing - but seems like there is always something around the corner.


So if the plan is to vote NO fine - it is a democracy - but then have a plan for after. Or is everyone going to blame the GC and DSS? If you wanted a militant leader to take us where you wanted to go why didn't one run? If you think the majority want to be more militant, start a motion - there are plenty of whatsapp groups doing a great job of whinging, blaming the HKAOA for no results. So do something about it - or just keep blaming everyone but yourselves for the inaction you partake in.

I have heard it all before many times - everyone is a keyboard or bar warrior. But how many stand up when needed? From my own experience, especially in 2001, you would be unpleasantly surprised.


What I would urge everyone though - DON'T leave the HKAOA. Membership dropped to 50% after 2001 and we got ZERO payrises for 7 years despite record profits. So you will save 1% or so but cost yourself in career earnings.

OK - off my soapbox;-)
Numero Crunchero is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 17:56
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 246
In 2001 not just the tragedy of 9-11 happened, but a week later Ansett collapsed and the pilot shortage disappeared overnight.

No reasonable argument encourages a fear of the unknown future.
But no reasonable argument encourages ignorance of differing scenarios. Rarely does does anything in life play out how we think it will. Particularly given how Swire react to anything.
Take a data privacy breach for example. Who would have predicted they put their collective heads up their butts for 7 months.
Yet somehow they’ll act rationally with industrial relations. Hopefully they do. But it’d be completely out of character.
Progress Wanchai is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 00:08
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 239
Numero Crunchero- if there is a mass exodus from the HKAOA it will be the GC’s fault. By recommending a “Yes” vote they brought into stark reality for many the futility of being in a Union that simply acts as a conduit for the unrestricted imposition of Management policy. Quite simply there is no reason to be part of the Union which does not protect it’s Members.
kenfoggo is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 01:59
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 246
No one disputes we are poorly lead. But I largely think the GC is an accurate cross section of the membership, which after all is who the union is.

Next time you’re at dispatch, look at the tables, the crews and their sign on time.
Look at the commuters and their W patterns.
Listen to the trainers/777 crew talk about their EFP.
Then ask yourself, should the phone ever ring putting you on a “golf day”, do you trust the above colleagues to comply? I wouldn’t trust them not to put any details of a “golf” day on Facebook.

kenfoggo, you’re right to question the purpose of being an AOA member, but it’s not solely due to a weak GC that has run out of ideas. It’s also due to a membership that values self before group.

In 99/00/01 this union was strong and united. Then a combination of company action and external factors conspired to weaken us to the point it took nearly a decade to recover. As you rightly point out, we are a weak union now. So I’m not sure how you expected the NC to pull a rabbit out of a rather battered hat. I’m sure we’ll vote this underwhelming offer down, then proudly declare that we’ve sent the company a clear message.
Then the trainers will keep training.
The commuters will keep commuting.
The 777 crew will continue to collect their EFP.
Crew will be at dispatch early with their iPads ready to go.
OCN’s will continue to be acknowledged.
And the wheels will keep on turning.
But hey, the members have shown backbone. They sent a resounding NO.

Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 18th Jan 2019 at 03:10.
Progress Wanchai is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 07:14
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 622
Originally Posted by kenfoggo View Post
Numero Crunchero- if there is a mass exodus from the HKAOA it will be the GC’s fault. By recommending a “Yes” vote they brought into stark reality for many the futility of being in a Union that simply acts as a conduit for the unrestricted imposition of Management policy. Quite simply there is no reason to be part of the Union which does not protect it’s Members.
Hey mate
in 2001 I was on the GC that recommended NO to the vote - that was pre rule 20.4 so the membership never got to vote on it. Over the next few years membership fell to 50%

So explain to me how the GC recommending Yes or No helps the situation?

Personally I think it is better for the membership to decide - that way no one can blame the GC for a Yes or No vote. Well, actually, many pilots don't like to take personal responsibility so I am sure they will sit back and blame everyone but themselves - and by everyone, clearly the NC, GC and DSS. Obviously CX has no part to play in this - if only we had a leader that said 'strike'- 100% of the members would literally walk off the job. Survey results suggest an ability to act far from this. If people can't be brave answering a survey what are they going to be like in real life?

So what do you want? Escalate? And what does that look like? We did escalate in 2001.

So yeah - rant and rave but please, do nothing, and then hold everyone else accountable for our misfortunes.
Numero Crunchero is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 07:32
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 239
Numero - I don’t think that any of my postings can be considered a rant nor even a rave . Like you I have been here since before the last dose of unpleasantness which resulted in the 49ers and so I am deeply pragmatic about what the HKAOA can achieve , or more pertinently CANNOT achieve. But I do think that the Union should provide some kind of buffer between an aggressive, confrontational Management and the Members. To recommend a “Yes” vote seemed to fail us all. Perhaps there is some substance in remaining in the HKAOA just to vote “NO” but ultimately what will happen? Nothing. Therefore I see no reason to remain engaged with a Union which does not act as a Union.
No rant.
I just do not see the point.
kenfoggo is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 07:54
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 344
When there is nothing to gain from voting yes or no, people will vote no out of principle at what is being offered. I think it's reached the stage where most pilots realise after this the AOA is finished, a done deal; little more than a social club with insurance benefits. Nobody's going to go on strike but that NO vote will feel good regardless!!
Threethirty is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 11:32
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: london
Posts: 45
Allowing the juniors to vote over terms and conditions of the seniors, and vice versa is pathetic and illogical.

The only answer here is: No.
FUANNA is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 11:44
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 49
Posts: 215
Fuanna, 100% Agree with your post. So spot on, and I am amazed we even allow this sort of crap to keep being enforced.
RAT Management is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 13:15
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: london
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by RAT Management View Post
Fuanna, 100% Agree with your post. So spot on, and I am amazed we even allow this sort of crap to keep being enforced.
Company wants it this way, because it ultimately drives costs down.

But why on earth is the AOA playing this game too?
FUANNA is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 16:42
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 622
Originally Posted by kenfoggo View Post
Numero - I don’t think that any of my postings can be considered a rant nor even a rave . Like you I have been here since before the last dose of unpleasantness which resulted in the 49ers and so I am deeply pragmatic about what the HKAOA can achieve , or more pertinently CANNOT achieve. But I do think that the Union should provide some kind of buffer between an aggressive, confrontational Management and the Members. To recommend a “Yes” vote seemed to fail us all. Perhaps there is some substance in remaining in the HKAOA just to vote “NO” but ultimately what will happen? Nothing. Therefore I see no reason to remain engaged with a Union which does not act as a Union.
No rant.
I just do not see the point.
Kenfoggo - you are right I am tarring you with a broad brush. I get frustrated - as I did in 2001 - with lots of big talk. And yes of course there is action between here and 'strike'.
apologies!
Numero Crunchero is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 19:22
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Crew bunk
Posts: 134
Oh, the training ban is not hurting them, so let's vote yes and bend over for our pineapple insertion. What a load of crap! If the ban wasn't hurting them, they would just ignore us, and not be so damned adamant on having clauses from preventing us from ever using it again. Would you yes-vote idiots please grow a pair and open your eyes!
Pogie is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 08:14
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 906
The thread title interests me. As time goes on and as more and more GC tools crawl out from under the stones from where they have been hiding , there certainly seems to be some conspiracy going on. Just looking at the posts from that Spin Doctor RL says it all.

I'm voting NO based on the Sh1te presented . I urge the pussycat "on the fence" voters to vote NO based on the very strange behaviour being exhibited by certain GC and NC members.
betpump5 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 04:37
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by betpump5 View Post
The thread title interests me. As time goes on and as more and more GC tools crawl out from under the stones from where they have been hiding , there certainly seems to be some conspiracy going on. Just looking at the posts from that Spin Doctor RL says it all.

I'm voting NO based on the Sh1te presented . I urge the pussycat "on the fence" voters to vote NO based on the very strange behaviour being exhibited by certain GC and NC members.
Totally agree. Vote "no" and push back some of the shit. And can anyone explain why the vote is taking place in such short order ? Could it be because the company wants it pushed thru before the annual results are out ? Why not delay until say 1st April and then decide. With record profits about to be announced some of the yes inclined voters might think again when they see the shreholders and directors award themselves huge bonuses and dividends at the expense of the pilots. There is no rush to vote. Wait and see if the sob story from management is true or not.
Rumour has it directors to vote themselves an 8% bonus based on the pilots voting yes and the end of fuel hedging.
unitedabx is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2019, 08:46
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 622
Originally Posted by unitedabx View Post
Totally agree. Vote "no" and push back some of the shit. And can anyone explain why the vote is taking place in such short order ? Could it be because the company wants it pushed thru before the annual results are out ? Why not delay until say 1st April and then decide. With record profits about to be announced some of the yes inclined voters might think again when they see the shreholders and directors award themselves huge bonuses and dividends at the expense of the pilots. There is no rush to vote. Wait and see if the sob story from management is true or not.
Rumour has it directors to vote themselves an 8% bonus based on the pilots voting yes and the end of fuel hedging.
If there had been no member amendment, the original GC motion would have allowed for a full vote to start two weeks earlier.

In order to satisfy RF's amendment, both RF and the GC agreed to a compromise (which is the current GC motion). RF then changed his mind and now we have two different motions. As the GC one now contains most of RF's original requirements, the GC is UNABLE to change the dates on the Final Agreements whether the GC or RF motion passes. So the vote had to be reduced to end 1 Feb to comply with the new RF restrictions placed on both motions.

If there had been no member amendment then the entire vote process could have been fully completed, iaw HKAOA rules, without any shortening two weeks earlier than they will now. So if the vote passed by now, HKPA members would have their increased rates paid in February.

So no skull duggery - all purely driven by the member amendment motion. But if you want conspiracy theory - RF's amendment has saved the company around $6million HKD in February assuming the vote passes.
Numero Crunchero is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2019, 09:00
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 183
That should cover your TC upgrade.
The FUB is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2019, 09:30
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by Numero Crunchero View Post
If there had been no member amendment, the original GC motion would have allowed for a full vote to start two weeks earlier.

In order to satisfy RF's amendment, both RF and the GC agreed to a compromise (which is the current GC motion). RF then changed his mind and now we have two different motions. As the GC one now contains most of RF's original requirements, the GC is UNABLE to change the dates on the Final Agreements whether the GC or RF motion passes. So the vote had to be reduced to end 1 Feb to comply with the new RF restrictions placed on both motions.

If there had been no member amendment then the entire vote process could have been fully completed, iaw HKAOA rules, without any shortening two weeks earlier than they will now. So if the vote passed by now, HKPA members would have their increased rates paid in February.

So no skull duggery - all purely driven by the member amendment motion. But if you want conspiracy theory - RF's amendment has saved the company around $6million HKD in February assuming the vote passes.
Thank you for the concise explanation. So the tail really is wagging the dog and the tail is being slapped by the company. What ever happened to members rights. HKAOA not fit for purpose.
unitedabx is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.