Why...?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why...?
Watching this from afar, and now with no skin in the game, I am forced to offer an opinion. I can only state clearly and emphatically: I am shocked and saddened at what has become of the AOA. It is bad enough that we have had to fight the adversary of our management for the past 25 years (!), but now it seems we have to fight our own union leadership as well. A few questions:
1) Why has the AOA "recommended" this offer? Surely, as it did not meet the minimum expectations clearly laid out by the membership, the most that should have happened was it being presented to the members without a "for or against" position. Arguably, it should have been presented with a "not recommended" label.
2) Why are certain members of the GC/NC trying to justify the unjustifiable on the AOA forums? More to the point, why is a particular NC member distorting the truth in certain matters to try and justify his position? It is unseemly, gives the appearance of self-serving motivation and leads one to conclude that there is something very wrong at the heart of the union leadership. I am suspicious of the motivations of the NC/GC at this point. The logic fails by any analysis.
3) Why the rush to vote? Surely it would be best for the union and members to wait for the annual results and make a more accurate determination as to the company's tedious claims of financial "distress".
4) Why the haste to agree a contract that effectively takes away the unions greatest and most effective tool, the TB? Surely that should only be done when all the facts are in, and more importantly, the company has adequately addressed ALL the open issues. The TB is working, slowly but surely to grind down CX's ability to function. If it's gone, so is any leverage you have to fight for proper conditions and pay.
Overall, I am very suspicious at the process, the lack of transparency and most importantly, the seeming inexplicable "recommendation" for what is obviously a completely inadequate and damaging sham of a contract. The AOA leadership has a lot of explaining to do. So far, they are failing in that test. As for the membership, look at the evidence of the operation to appreciate that CC/TB is slowly but surely bringing the company to the point where they will have no choice but to offer proper terms. This is their last great bluff, and only hope you are foolish enough to capitulate and throw in the towel. Don't let them destroy the rightful value of your career. If this gets voted in, the career of "Pilot" at CX will have effectively ended forever.
1) Why has the AOA "recommended" this offer? Surely, as it did not meet the minimum expectations clearly laid out by the membership, the most that should have happened was it being presented to the members without a "for or against" position. Arguably, it should have been presented with a "not recommended" label.
2) Why are certain members of the GC/NC trying to justify the unjustifiable on the AOA forums? More to the point, why is a particular NC member distorting the truth in certain matters to try and justify his position? It is unseemly, gives the appearance of self-serving motivation and leads one to conclude that there is something very wrong at the heart of the union leadership. I am suspicious of the motivations of the NC/GC at this point. The logic fails by any analysis.
3) Why the rush to vote? Surely it would be best for the union and members to wait for the annual results and make a more accurate determination as to the company's tedious claims of financial "distress".
4) Why the haste to agree a contract that effectively takes away the unions greatest and most effective tool, the TB? Surely that should only be done when all the facts are in, and more importantly, the company has adequately addressed ALL the open issues. The TB is working, slowly but surely to grind down CX's ability to function. If it's gone, so is any leverage you have to fight for proper conditions and pay.
Overall, I am very suspicious at the process, the lack of transparency and most importantly, the seeming inexplicable "recommendation" for what is obviously a completely inadequate and damaging sham of a contract. The AOA leadership has a lot of explaining to do. So far, they are failing in that test. As for the membership, look at the evidence of the operation to appreciate that CC/TB is slowly but surely bringing the company to the point where they will have no choice but to offer proper terms. This is their last great bluff, and only hope you are foolish enough to capitulate and throw in the towel. Don't let them destroy the rightful value of your career. If this gets voted in, the career of "Pilot" at CX will have effectively ended forever.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Rosterabuseland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traf,
Do everyone a favour and let’s keep this discussion where it belongs...on the AOA forums. If you are a member then you’ll find the same questions there! If you’re not a member then you don’t deserve to hear anything but the company spiel.
Do everyone a favour and let’s keep this discussion where it belongs...on the AOA forums. If you are a member then you’ll find the same questions there! If you’re not a member then you don’t deserve to hear anything but the company spiel.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lav
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@petrichor - That is exactly what the company wants so they can control the spin on this bag of $hit. They are already trying to make the public believe they gave concessions via their mouthpiece, the SCMP.
@Trafalgar - Nice to see you back here. Agreed, something definitely stinks in Hong Kong and it ain't Fragrant Harbour....
@Trafalgar - Nice to see you back here. Agreed, something definitely stinks in Hong Kong and it ain't Fragrant Harbour....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, Petricor. Which AOA office are you sitting in writing that response? No surprise that the GC/NC don't want someone like Traf commenting. And as for suggesting he isn't "welcome" if he is no longer a member??? Seriously? Rather listen to him than the drivel from certain members of the AOA exec on the forums.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per Trafs Q1: Why did the GC “recommend” this joke of a proposal. Perhaps RL could actually provide a cognizant answer to that question in the forums, instead of sounding llike someone who has been caught with his hand in the biscuit jar. As for Traf not being entitled to comment.....who the hell are you Petrichor. Come back when you’ve outgrown small boy pants.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: china
Age: 54
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, over at the DPA, the new president has already indicated that the upcoming salary negotiations will revolve around accepting a 0% deal until 2021, in exchange for better cohesion between members and the company. A deal to ask the company to increas G days to a min of 10/ month and to at least commit to improving the medical cover.
Pretty pathetic that a junior C scaler is incharge.
we know where that will get us all, sweet fanny adams.
Pretty pathetic that a junior C scaler is incharge.
we know where that will get us all, sweet fanny adams.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Traf
really missed your posts - your use of words exceeds my ability with numbers by an order of magnitude;-)
1) I agree - should have been neutral recommendation IMHO
2) If someone says something that is bull**** - I call bull****. Like saying "we can't do IA for 10 years" - not true. But on forums almost everyone that posts is a vociferous NO - so of course most of arguments are against the NO voters using flawed or incorrect 'facts' to justify their position. It is quite ok to have all the facts and still vote NO. Just don't use BS to justify it.
3) this deal was supposed to be voted on around 5-6 months ago. No rush. But if the membership want longer, just vote it down and keep CC/TB.
4) I honestly don't know the best path forward. Is it the devil you know(sign and get agreements) or don't sign and see what happens. I am just very grateful that decision will be made by 2400 of my peers.
Anyway - keep posting please - I have always enjoyed reading them.
really missed your posts - your use of words exceeds my ability with numbers by an order of magnitude;-)
1) I agree - should have been neutral recommendation IMHO
2) If someone says something that is bull**** - I call bull****. Like saying "we can't do IA for 10 years" - not true. But on forums almost everyone that posts is a vociferous NO - so of course most of arguments are against the NO voters using flawed or incorrect 'facts' to justify their position. It is quite ok to have all the facts and still vote NO. Just don't use BS to justify it.
3) this deal was supposed to be voted on around 5-6 months ago. No rush. But if the membership want longer, just vote it down and keep CC/TB.
4) I honestly don't know the best path forward. Is it the devil you know(sign and get agreements) or don't sign and see what happens. I am just very grateful that decision will be made by 2400 of my peers.
Anyway - keep posting please - I have always enjoyed reading them.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Hong kong
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traf welcome back , really glad to see your sane and sensible arguments being put forward again . It’s great to see that you haven’t forgotten everyone still trying to make a stand . As for Petrichor’s comment, that after decades in the company you are not entitled to comment . I simply cannot fathom that logic at all , but I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. Obviously after leaving the company Traf is no longer an AOA member but his advice is a great deal more sage than that coming from the AOA GC
I have to ask what exactly are we voting for ?
1) A payrise that has kept pace with inflation over the last 4 years
2) Better rostering
3) Better COS
4) Improved medical
5) A contract that cannot be changed from time to time
6) Fleet transfer in line with seniority
7) Improved housing
8) Better overtime payments
If you answered NO ! to the above points I think that you pretty much have your answer
I have to ask what exactly are we voting for ?
1) A payrise that has kept pace with inflation over the last 4 years
2) Better rostering
3) Better COS
4) Improved medical
5) A contract that cannot be changed from time to time
6) Fleet transfer in line with seniority
7) Improved housing
8) Better overtime payments
If you answered NO ! to the above points I think that you pretty much have your answer
Last edited by Tea time; 2nd Jan 2019 at 13:46.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traf--I appreciate seeing ya back and hope things are going well for ya. And thank you for the sage comments. Thanks for still giving a damn about your friends who may still be here. Although it's probably a strong blessing to view the place from outside.
One thing that's useful (even though this forum is public) is that what happens in HKG has the potential to affect others (who are or might be on a base--even though I say that a bit tongue in cheek) -- either there or if considering returning to HKG. There seems to be an information/action vacuum and it's worthwhile to hear insights.
One of the cardinal sins of negotiations (again using the word 'negotiations' a bit tongue in cheek) is to rush into something--especially if there's fine print or conditions yet to be decided. I can't fathom how anyone could approve a TA which relinquishes future leverage under nonbinding promises to address other issues still in flux. Who does stuff like this ? I can understand coming to agreement with terms of a specific letter of agreement or understanding -- but that agreement would affect ONLY that particular LOU/LOA and not wheedle its way into OTHER issues (or demand conditions outside of the specific LOU until the entire package was set in stone).
I remain baffled by the entire scene.
One thing that's useful (even though this forum is public) is that what happens in HKG has the potential to affect others (who are or might be on a base--even though I say that a bit tongue in cheek) -- either there or if considering returning to HKG. There seems to be an information/action vacuum and it's worthwhile to hear insights.
One of the cardinal sins of negotiations (again using the word 'negotiations' a bit tongue in cheek) is to rush into something--especially if there's fine print or conditions yet to be decided. I can't fathom how anyone could approve a TA which relinquishes future leverage under nonbinding promises to address other issues still in flux. Who does stuff like this ? I can understand coming to agreement with terms of a specific letter of agreement or understanding -- but that agreement would affect ONLY that particular LOU/LOA and not wheedle its way into OTHER issues (or demand conditions outside of the specific LOU until the entire package was set in stone).
I remain baffled by the entire scene.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No self respecting pilots in the first world would tolerate a TA like this, and neither should we. However, HK is nowhere close to first world, and far too many of us are not self respecting. Heck, some of us aren’t even pilots at all. Sad state of affairs at CX! From first to worst in two decades. I guess none should be surprised after the 49ers. The hand writing was on the wall, and we all ignored it. Now it’s time to pay the piper. I grow more ashamed of the CX uniform with each passing day. Management has been awful for a good while, yet I’m even ashamed of most of my “pilot” colleagues at this point. What a joke we are!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the last bit is a bit harsh CX..., but I understand your point. I would say however that those comments perfectly describe those that are on their TC courses as we speak. Disgusting cretins, every one. And they are on a list....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No self respecting pilots in the first world would tolerate a TA like this, and neither should we. However, HK is nowhere close to first world, and far too many of us are not self respecting. Heck, some of us aren’t even pilots at all. Sad state of affairs at CX! From first to worst in two decades. I guess none should be surprised after the 49ers. The hand writing was on the wall, and we all ignored it. Now it’s time to pay the piper. I grow more ashamed of the CX uniform with each passing day. Management has been awful for a good while, yet I’m even ashamed of most of my “pilot” colleagues at this point. What a joke we are!
There are 7,200,000 reasons why the ARAPA guys will sign yes. That is the amound of $$$ they will pay off on their property over the next 10 years. Do training and that figure jumpst to almost $9,000,000. A lot of the local pilots, will also sign yes, as they are still living at home and an extra $2000-4000 is money in their pockets. As fo the rest of the HKPA guys, they will sign yes as it means quicker upgrades and a possibility to leave even sooner with a big fat A350 or B777 on their licence.
The Umbrella clause is a non event as it is 10 years on ARAPA, 4 years on HKPA and 18 months on the rest. Why would you start industrial action on ARAPA during the next 10 years? Vote no get nothing, vote yes get what is on the table...you do not like it then start action within 18 months and they take it all back and we are exacly where we are now!
Also remember that the usual 10 suspects that are bashing about how crap it is on Pprune, are the same 10 guys that are bashing how crap the dewal is on the HKAOA forum. The rest of the guys are the silent majority.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Traf I am amazed that this was sent to the Membership with a positive recommendation. The G.C. think that your best efforts are worth a 1 percent pay rise. Numero Crunchero, that is not “aneamic” , that is derisory!
Last edited by kenfoggo; 3rd Jan 2019 at 03:29.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(a copy and paste from the forums)
NO - because a re-hash of RP’s from 11-years ago, with increased restrictions upon the crew and less control by the crew is not a step forward.
NO - because no employer should be allowed to tie the hands of the professional representation of the workforce.
NO - because vague promises to consider real workplace issues is not a commitment to solving those issues.
NO - because CPA has failed to demonstrate any real intention to cease its industrial misbehaviour of the past 25 years (1994).
NO - because the egos that lie at the heart of the present situation have not been changed and will not be reigned-in.
NO - (feel free to add to this list)
NO - because a re-hash of RP’s from 11-years ago, with increased restrictions upon the crew and less control by the crew is not a step forward.
NO - because no employer should be allowed to tie the hands of the professional representation of the workforce.
NO - because vague promises to consider real workplace issues is not a commitment to solving those issues.
NO - because CPA has failed to demonstrate any real intention to cease its industrial misbehaviour of the past 25 years (1994).
NO - because the egos that lie at the heart of the present situation have not been changed and will not be reigned-in.
NO - (feel free to add to this list)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Froggy,
I’m not fooling myself. I already wrote that it WILL pass, which is even more reason to be embarrassed. I’m truly ashamed of this pilot group and in my own judgement for joining it all those years ago, and then not leaving when I could have. No one to blame but myself. Now trapped financially...
I’m not fooling myself. I already wrote that it WILL pass, which is even more reason to be embarrassed. I’m truly ashamed of this pilot group and in my own judgement for joining it all those years ago, and then not leaving when I could have. No one to blame but myself. Now trapped financially...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear GC members. Was wondering who you work for? It seems you are going on the forums and basically making the company's case for them. As an example, IM trying to advocate for the company's "poor finances". That isn't your job, and furthermore, we all can see the positive financial aspects now coming to the fore for the company. I don't expect nor want the GC acting as agents for the company, and that is EXACTLY what you are doing. Stop. Better yet, resign. Not fit for purpose.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all need to wake up and see the AOA for what it is, a puppet that has its strings pulled by the company.
There is no negotiation, DS and the rest of his pathetic minions get given a deal by the company and then endorse it. Why in the world would they endorse this deal when it does not meet ANY of the objectives the membership was seeking when we first implemented the TB all those years ago?
If our actions were not causing pain to the company then they would not be talking at all. Accepting this sh!tty deal gives them the green light to keep chipping away at your conditions as they have for the past 25 years.
To the SO's thinking that an end to the training ban will lead to a quicker upgrade, we no longer have a requirement for FO's in any meaningful numbers. The painful truth for you is that all but our longest flights are going to be crewed with two SO's, don't be duped by the managers telling you an end to the TB will lead to an upgrade. Why would it?
There is no negotiation, DS and the rest of his pathetic minions get given a deal by the company and then endorse it. Why in the world would they endorse this deal when it does not meet ANY of the objectives the membership was seeking when we first implemented the TB all those years ago?
If our actions were not causing pain to the company then they would not be talking at all. Accepting this sh!tty deal gives them the green light to keep chipping away at your conditions as they have for the past 25 years.
To the SO's thinking that an end to the training ban will lead to a quicker upgrade, we no longer have a requirement for FO's in any meaningful numbers. The painful truth for you is that all but our longest flights are going to be crewed with two SO's, don't be duped by the managers telling you an end to the TB will lead to an upgrade. Why would it?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you guys constantly try to turn this debate into a question of morality?
This is an industrial conflict. It is business, nothing else.It is simply a conflict of interests, we fight for our cause, they fight for theirs.
Don't be so naive and think you are on the good side and you are fighting the baddies. This is absurd. There is hence no place for words like shame or pride in this discussion.
I don't think we have the unity nor the leverage to win. Regardless of the costs, the company will not give in. This is my opinion and always has been since we rejected the last offer. I base my voting behaviour purely on economic game theory. My objective is to get the most out of my contract, same as you guys. By accepting or "giving up" as you probably would call it, I expect to get more than by the strategy you suggest. Always remember: if you misjudge the unity and the will power of our pilot body to fight this through, you misjudged the situation. You did not win any moral high ground, you are not a hero, you are not a better person, you simply lost.
You don't have to share my point of view, but how can you possibly accuse me or like-minded of being cowardish or frightened ? Don' t you see how misplaced, how childish that is?
This is an industrial conflict. It is business, nothing else.It is simply a conflict of interests, we fight for our cause, they fight for theirs.
Don't be so naive and think you are on the good side and you are fighting the baddies. This is absurd. There is hence no place for words like shame or pride in this discussion.
I don't think we have the unity nor the leverage to win. Regardless of the costs, the company will not give in. This is my opinion and always has been since we rejected the last offer. I base my voting behaviour purely on economic game theory. My objective is to get the most out of my contract, same as you guys. By accepting or "giving up" as you probably would call it, I expect to get more than by the strategy you suggest. Always remember: if you misjudge the unity and the will power of our pilot body to fight this through, you misjudged the situation. You did not win any moral high ground, you are not a hero, you are not a better person, you simply lost.
You don't have to share my point of view, but how can you possibly accuse me or like-minded of being cowardish or frightened ? Don' t you see how misplaced, how childish that is?