Reasons for a NO vote
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lav
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasons for a NO vote
I know it seems obvious to many (hopefully most) why POS18 should be voted down, but in the interest of removing any doubt, list the reasons for a no vote on POS18. Leave emotion, name calling, insults, rants, chest thumping, etc., out of this. No thread drifts or responding to other people's contributions to the list.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Umbrella emasculates our union for the foreseeable future leaving us completely open to any new attack on T&Cs
2. Defined as a “turd with sprinkles” even by it’s main NC supporter
3. Doesn’t come close to what was polled as minimum for HKPA
4. Is a reduction in terms of ARAPA
5. Contains an offensive 1% “payrise” when everyone else just got 3%. Forget about keeping up with inflation if we accept this. In fact, forget about ever getting another payrise once POS18 get trained up
6. Gives the company everything they want in exchange for all the above
2. Defined as a “turd with sprinkles” even by it’s main NC supporter
3. Doesn’t come close to what was polled as minimum for HKPA
4. Is a reduction in terms of ARAPA
5. Contains an offensive 1% “payrise” when everyone else just got 3%. Forget about keeping up with inflation if we accept this. In fact, forget about ever getting another payrise once POS18 get trained up
6. Gives the company everything they want in exchange for all the above
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there is a misconception here.
The company is our employer, and we are employees.
We are not citizen in a democracy.
We do not have voting rights. POS 18 is not up for a vote.
We can only vote in an internal union referendum wether to accept the latest company offer or to continue with the status quo. The other vote on offer is with your feet. That's it. All our wish lists, our minimum requirements, our envisions of an acceptable future package, all that is just a castle in the sky. The company doesn't have to negotiate anything at all. They do occasionally sit down and talk with our representatives. It is completely voluntarily to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to find an agreement with us under Hong Kong law.
Additionally, I warn to overestimate the power of a training ban. There are ways around it. They might cost something, but so would giving in to demands.
We are not as strong as some of you believe.
This could end in a tragedy.
The last rejection is already hurting us.
Don't make the same mistake twice.
The company is our employer, and we are employees.
We are not citizen in a democracy.
We do not have voting rights. POS 18 is not up for a vote.
We can only vote in an internal union referendum wether to accept the latest company offer or to continue with the status quo. The other vote on offer is with your feet. That's it. All our wish lists, our minimum requirements, our envisions of an acceptable future package, all that is just a castle in the sky. The company doesn't have to negotiate anything at all. They do occasionally sit down and talk with our representatives. It is completely voluntarily to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to find an agreement with us under Hong Kong law.
Additionally, I warn to overestimate the power of a training ban. There are ways around it. They might cost something, but so would giving in to demands.
We are not as strong as some of you believe.
This could end in a tragedy.
The last rejection is already hurting us.
Don't make the same mistake twice.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 7th Jan 2019 at 10:21.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 53
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts speak for themselves. Facts coupled with your experience in your career so far in this company and others gives you an instinct. Instinct tells you it's a No pure and simple.
If you vote Yes, it means you do so with a cringe, and you will be in a permanent state of flinch as you wait for what you hoped wouldn't happen, happen. Only to see it unfold before your eyes..... Then as you vote with your feet and walk out that door to take your position at the bottom of the seniority list, you will be thinking if I ever get in that situation again I would vote No because instinct said it was the right thing to do.
Do the right thing listen to your instincts, or accept the consequences.
If you vote Yes, it means you do so with a cringe, and you will be in a permanent state of flinch as you wait for what you hoped wouldn't happen, happen. Only to see it unfold before your eyes..... Then as you vote with your feet and walk out that door to take your position at the bottom of the seniority list, you will be thinking if I ever get in that situation again I would vote No because instinct said it was the right thing to do.
Do the right thing listen to your instincts, or accept the consequences.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The training ban can be unhinged. Simply take enough away from the line pilots and give it to the trainers. How many would still respect the ban if it would be a way to remain on full ARAPA? How many would quit?
You guys are at risk to underestimating the powers of the other side.
You guys are at risk to underestimating the powers of the other side.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW makes a valid point.
The vote is between what’s on offer, or the status quo with its 3 amenable company policies.
The current rumor is; management believe that they’ve got very unlucky with their timing and are aiming for a NO vote, then hold out anticipating a 2019 recession, before walking away entirely (ala 2001). The one thing we’ve got in our favor is management don’t have a great track record of predicting future financial markets, although the law of averages suggests they’re overdue.
The vote is between what’s on offer, or the status quo with its 3 amenable company policies.
The current rumor is; management believe that they’ve got very unlucky with their timing and are aiming for a NO vote, then hold out anticipating a 2019 recession, before walking away entirely (ala 2001). The one thing we’ve got in our favor is management don’t have a great track record of predicting future financial markets, although the law of averages suggests they’re overdue.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The training ban can be unhinged. Simply take enough away from the line pilots and give it to the trainers. How many would still respect the ban if it would be a way to remain on full ARAPA? How many would quit?
You guys are at risk to underestimating the powers of the other side.
You guys are at risk to underestimating the powers of the other side.
Anyone with half a brain would see the perks would be temporary and your good name lasts the length of a career.
Powers? Enlighten me...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oasis,
there are multiple ways to attack the training ban:
1) ARAPA only to trainers, rest on frozen HKPA or significantly cut ARAPA. An instant killer move.
2) Increase pay only for trainers/ reduce pay for line pilots proportional to the ratio line pilots : trainers. Cost neutral. If you cut ARAPA or freeze HKPA for line pilots only you can't even spend it all on trainers.
3) Preferential treatment of trainers in non-pecuniary areas, e.g. leave bidding, requests, basings, parking, travel benefits, part-time, seperate seniority list, fleet transfer, weekends/school holidays off, take away FOCs from line pilots and give it to trainers, 11 for their ID90 tickets, free stays at the Headland, commuting contracts etc Anything is possible. Cost neutral-ish
4) Externalise training to other agencies. I would not be surprised if they are already in talks. Offer companies like Flight Safety long-term contracts and they will invest and do the job.
5) Hire contract trainers
You could use a combination of the above or start one by one.
One way or the other, the company will get what they want in the end. If the pressure is high enough the measures could be drastic.This is Hong Kong, Ground Zero of corporate greed, a Disneyland for managers, a wet dream of every shareholder. We do not have rights worth mentioning. Our union is basically a social club with insurance benefits, no disrespect to the active members. We do not have any real power, except leaving. I don't think enough will leave.
Trainers could step back from their posts as we speak, but they don't. Some individuals already broke the ban. I don't believe there is enough solidarity among us to stop people from joining training if the benefits are high enough.
there are multiple ways to attack the training ban:
1) ARAPA only to trainers, rest on frozen HKPA or significantly cut ARAPA. An instant killer move.
2) Increase pay only for trainers/ reduce pay for line pilots proportional to the ratio line pilots : trainers. Cost neutral. If you cut ARAPA or freeze HKPA for line pilots only you can't even spend it all on trainers.
3) Preferential treatment of trainers in non-pecuniary areas, e.g. leave bidding, requests, basings, parking, travel benefits, part-time, seperate seniority list, fleet transfer, weekends/school holidays off, take away FOCs from line pilots and give it to trainers, 11 for their ID90 tickets, free stays at the Headland, commuting contracts etc Anything is possible. Cost neutral-ish
4) Externalise training to other agencies. I would not be surprised if they are already in talks. Offer companies like Flight Safety long-term contracts and they will invest and do the job.
5) Hire contract trainers
You could use a combination of the above or start one by one.
One way or the other, the company will get what they want in the end. If the pressure is high enough the measures could be drastic.This is Hong Kong, Ground Zero of corporate greed, a Disneyland for managers, a wet dream of every shareholder. We do not have rights worth mentioning. Our union is basically a social club with insurance benefits, no disrespect to the active members. We do not have any real power, except leaving. I don't think enough will leave.
Trainers could step back from their posts as we speak, but they don't. Some individuals already broke the ban. I don't believe there is enough solidarity among us to stop people from joining training if the benefits are high enough.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 7th Jan 2019 at 21:14.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 53
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW,
Points 1&2 are covered by agreements that would be the result of legal challenge. Otherwise ARAPA would have been cancelled already... Afterall it's a cost saving.... That's why there are negotiations and any acceptance of a new ARapa would nullify any chance to legally challenge.
Points 4&5 come at huge cost. Not only at financial terms but also for careers of staff and moral of airline. Not to mention the lots of control of the standards. Besides you know what will be willing to be paid... Peanuts.... Result..... Monkeys and Accidents.
Quit your scare mongering.
If this is the deal you want vote Yes.
If it's not good enough or you have a bad feeling about it, vote No.
It's that simple.
Points 1&2 are covered by agreements that would be the result of legal challenge. Otherwise ARAPA would have been cancelled already... Afterall it's a cost saving.... That's why there are negotiations and any acceptance of a new ARapa would nullify any chance to legally challenge.
Points 4&5 come at huge cost. Not only at financial terms but also for careers of staff and moral of airline. Not to mention the lots of control of the standards. Besides you know what will be willing to be paid... Peanuts.... Result..... Monkeys and Accidents.
Quit your scare mongering.
If this is the deal you want vote Yes.
If it's not good enough or you have a bad feeling about it, vote No.
It's that simple.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6) Mitigate the training ban by transferring aircraft between entities. Personally I doubt it makes little difference which way the vote goes, KA and AHK are to expand at the cost of a shrinking CX.
If the vote goes one way, management have a scapegoat.
If it goes the other, it’ll still happen but quieter.
The days of CX pilots flying freighters (or even 330’s) are numbered. Senior pilots, particularly captains, won’t care too much that they work for a shrinking airline that is removing the least desirable patterns. Junior pilots may be less amused.
If the vote goes one way, management have a scapegoat.
If it goes the other, it’ll still happen but quieter.
The days of CX pilots flying freighters (or even 330’s) are numbered. Senior pilots, particularly captains, won’t care too much that they work for a shrinking airline that is removing the least desirable patterns. Junior pilots may be less amused.
You’ve described yourself as an expat who married a local, then became sanguine to the abuse that you’ve received. You’ve claimed that you are a B Scale expat. I find it difficult to believe that a person from a first world country could be as ignorant of the global industry as you pretend to be. I don’t believe that you're a B Scale pilot. That leaves three options;
1. You’re a troll, or
2. You’re a management troll.
3. All of the above with a scab mentality.
I’m reminded of a YouTube video showing a young Hong Kong local boy crying on his knees, taking a beating from his skinny little girlfriend. She had the money.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont vote yes because you are afraid of what might, could, maybe happen.
Vote on the facts...the deal is a one sided piece of crap, so it's a NO.
[/QUOTE]Vote on the facts...the deal is a one sided piece of crap, so it's a NO.
That’s a 2 sided argument.
There are a number of crew who are selling property and shares, converting provident fund to cash, on the conviction the economy is about to tank.
Then we’ve crew who firmly believe that time will buy us greater leverage.
They can’t both be right.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 35,000 feet
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Reason to vote no is simple: It is not an improvement!
1% pay is less than a overnight allowance and the entire issue is not about Money.
the RP's are not better, and if the Training Ban goes away the AOA needs written assurance that Jepp Crew Request is funded.
ARAPA is worse for a majority of pilots than what is previously on offer and HKPA does not meet inflation nor what the New Joiners on POS 18 receive.
The GC should also add getting POS 18 New Joiners into the mix on this action, for the pure fact it is discriminatory!
One Contract
One set of Work Rules,
One Pay Scale
One Airline
That is what is meant by Time to Win!
1% pay is less than a overnight allowance and the entire issue is not about Money.
the RP's are not better, and if the Training Ban goes away the AOA needs written assurance that Jepp Crew Request is funded.
ARAPA is worse for a majority of pilots than what is previously on offer and HKPA does not meet inflation nor what the New Joiners on POS 18 receive.
The GC should also add getting POS 18 New Joiners into the mix on this action, for the pure fact it is discriminatory!
One Contract
One set of Work Rules,
One Pay Scale
One Airline
That is what is meant by Time to Win!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that for the first time, the GC has referred the decision to the membership to soundly vote "no" instead of the usual impasse that CX management consistently blames on an obstructive, uncooperative GC?
Of course, the proposal is awful, and no-one in their right minds would vote yes.
A NO vote is exactly what the GC wants!
Of course, the proposal is awful, and no-one in their right minds would vote yes.
A NO vote is exactly what the GC wants!
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that for the first time, the GC has referred the decision to the membership to soundly vote "no" instead of the usual impasse that CX management consistently blames on an obstructive, uncooperative GC?
Of course, the proposal is awful, and no-one in their right minds would vote yes.
A NO vote is exactly what the GC wants!
Of course, the proposal is awful, and no-one in their right minds would vote yes.
A NO vote is exactly what the GC wants!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to sum it up.
JP believes calling me a manager is much better than bringing up actual arguments, Dan likes expletives, Viking wants one contract for all (!), Cpt Underpants thinks the GC is in it and is voting in favor but actually isn't, and United is just adding insult to injury.
What a team.
JP believes calling me a manager is much better than bringing up actual arguments, Dan likes expletives, Viking wants one contract for all (!), Cpt Underpants thinks the GC is in it and is voting in favor but actually isn't, and United is just adding insult to injury.
What a team.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 8th Jan 2019 at 06:39.