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

Reasons for a NO vote

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.

Reasons for a NO vote

Old 8th Jan 2019, 06:35
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sam Ting Wong
So to sum it up, JP believes calling me a manager is much better than bringing up actual arguments, 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.
STW, you are defeatest. Vote "NO"
unitedabx is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2019, 06:38
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't know how to put it to you, United. Calling me a defeatist is not an argument, it just isn't.

By all means, everyone should vote as they please, I respect your choice, but why do you guys think you find it so hard to bring up real arguments?

Calling each other names is just childish and leads nowhere. I am going to take a break.

Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 8th Jan 2019 at 06:59.
Sam Ting Wong is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2019, 06:48
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FJGD
Age: 48
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sam Ting Wong


What a team.
That is the point... there is no team here. Looking from the outside here in Canada, you all are your own worst enemies.
SASD209 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2019, 18:09
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!
cxorcist is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2019, 19:03
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lav
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cxorcist
A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!
Every attempt to reason and negotiate has fallen on deaf ears. They interpret professionalism and taking the high road as weakness and not having the stomach to stand up to them. Every time they get a whiff of what they perceive as said weakness, they become more intractable. It seems the only thing they will understand is a strike. I have no doubt that they are 99.999999999999% certain you won't, and so they keep on keeping on.
Amber Vibes is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2019, 04:31
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cxorcist
A strike is the ONLY thing that will restore balance to the Management / pilot relationship at CX!!!
It will never happen in CX. Too many self interested factions. HOWEVER, the CC and TB is having an effect. A bit like water boarding, slowly the company is drowning. It may not be fashionable but it is effective.
unitedabx is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 12:54
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sam, am I going to have to chase your frantic and pathetic posts all over PPRUNE...? As I said to you on the other thread, let the grownups decide what they want their careers to be. Your scaremongering is getting wearisome. As to the training ban, which you seem to denigrate, it is in fact crippling the airline and is highly effective, so no wonder you attempt to discredit it (proof: look at the overall goal of the companys proposal, which is to get rid of the TB). We won't be giving up our one effective tactic for the worst contract on offer in the airline industry. To do so will guarantee the end of the AOA, the end of hope for a proper career in CX and the end of any decision as to whether people leave or stay. It will in fact be the end of CX, the management are just too blind and myopic to see it. As Turbine70 just told you above, your post is illogical. (and again, all your posts show as your 'first' post...why is that Sam?).
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 13:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This offer does not indicate that the company are even remotely concerned about the TB. We don’t have leverage. It’s the illusion of leverage. All the grandstanding big talk here and on the AOA forums demonstrates a complete lack of reasoning ability.

It’s false logic to assume that what HAS NOT worked in the last few years is somehow going to work now. Assuming that because the company wants to get rid of the TB means it’s cripplign them is naive. They haven’t needed to grow the last couple of years while they “transform” . Saving all that money they would have had to pay if TA16 passed suits them fine I’m sure.

Now we we are entering a period where the company not only desires to grow, but might have real opportunity to grow with some extra slots available due trouble across the road. So we reject this offer but don’t change our industrial approach. The company has 1600 HKPA increases worth of money budgeted for, which can now be used exclusively to circumvent the almighty training ban.

Signing bonus? Training pay increase? Guaranteed leave at either Xmas or school holidays? Contract trainers (yes it’s possible)? Increased FOCs? Higher priority on staff travel? Parking spots? Guaranteed pick of trips? Bases? That’s just off the top of my head. Peace is option a for the company. But they’ll fight if they have to. Are we ready?

As a bit of an aside I’m dismayed at the glee some of the more dimwitted amongst you seem to have at hurting the company. The long term profitability and success of Cathay Pacific is really good for job security. Also good for negotiations when the company is taking in billions. And please for the love of god spare me the idiotic conspiracy theories.

In summary. Let’s vote NO and the take it up a notch. A NO and “holding the line” is going to lead to absolute heartbreak.
tiredofstupidity is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 16:10
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this offer acceptable: NO
Is the TB effective: YES
Does the company want the TB removed: YES
Will the company suddenly transform into a caring employer if we roll over: NO
Will the company laugh themselves all the way to their next bonuses if we vote yes: YES
Can the company expand with a TB and CC: NO
What is the obvious answer to this appalling and derisory offer: NO

It really doesn't matter what they threaten or imply. I am not voting for an offer that neuters the AOA, confirms we are weak fools, and once and for all opens the doors to a never ending slide towards COS 18 for all. It may not be comfortable doing so, but a NO vote is the ONLY sane option. I am happy to keep TB and CC going for the rest of my career, and i'm on ARAPA and would like the additional housing. I won't throw away my integrity and honour for that however. NO. NO. NO.
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 01:35
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Auckland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sam Ting Wong
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.
This is the entire point of a union Sam, to inject some much needed democracy into the tyranny of a company. You might accuse me of hyperbole but without people fighting for their rights as employees we would have 12 year old working 20 hours a day in coal mines. Without people fighting for their conditions do you really believe that they would not continuously be eroded at the whims of management and shareholders?
You have correctly hit upon the main reason the union is not as effective as it's members would like, and that's Hong Kong law, but we must not give into fatalism and accept whatever paltry compromise the negotiating team vomits up. You want to be pragmatic, I get it, but you must acknowledge that the economic situation that the company finds itself in is improving and compared to the last time an offer was made it's future is looking bright.
Pragmatically speaking, the membership would be wise to reject this bad deal, and continue to patiently negotiate while the economic climate continues to improve and make the company's positions look ridiculously untenable. Keep up the training ban, and keep up the pressure. Don't give in to fear-mongering, media-smearing, and bully tactics.
DownUnderThunder is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 06:03
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reasons for a yes vote.

I will probably get a fair bit of stick for this but in my opinion it is the sensible thing to vote yes.

What will Cathay do if we vote no? Capitulate or teach us a lesson. People have already broken the training ban, you think those who are on the fence will support an AOA that sold us out? This will be the excuse many need to resign from the AOA and go into training. I don't think it will be a flood but there will be some, not enough to solve the issue for CX. As alluded to above, they will find ways to circumvent the TB. External parties training, KA, people going over to POS18 past 55 and "made" to go into training, additional perks for trainers. What will we do? Continue not answering our phones and mainly not accepting new training positions, will this cripple them like so many on here believe? They are a vindictive bunch and will do anything to get one over on us.

Pay, 1% is a joke and 1% is what it will be if we vote yes. What will it be if we vote no? Pos18 was brought in when they were apparently being crippled by CC and the TB. How many pay rises have A scale had since B scale arrived? I honestly don't think they will give us more if we vote no. For the majority at CX upgrades have been delayed due to this, my best guess is at least by 12 months. That is a huge pay cut for the majority, and that lasts a career.

RPs, one of the biggest gripes it seems is the reserve of 3 or 6 days and O days attached. How is it now? GGGRGG I have seen, I have also seen RDutyDutyDutyDutyOO, what have we (AOA) done about it? Nothing! They will continue to be punitive with this in true CX style just to teach us a lesson.

HKPA, it's a bit better but still woefully inadequate. These pipe dreams of it being indexed are just that, dreams. Indexing a housing assistance has bitten them before. How much has been lost since TA16 was turned down buy guys on HKPA? I voted no for that in the incorrect assumption that the AOA (us) would tighten the screws, be aggressive in negotiations, walk away from **** offers, lead from the top and have more training resignations than we did.

ARA, this is the only thing that has me on the fence. I do not think it right to vote yes to something that will cause people to lose out, guys in serviced apartments will be out of pocket. I am on ARAPA btw. Do I think they will impose this rule regardless, yes. Do I think we (AOA) will support action against the company for doing this if the offer is turned down, no I don't. I would be happy to and would expect it, but it is not just me. They want this gone, if we vote yes at least we know we have 10 years till that time comes. By then we will be in the vast minority, do you think an AOA then would support us? That is also the case in 5 years if we vote to reject this, if they come after it, will we be successful in fighting them. During the next down turn, maybe in 1,2,3 years, if they come after it will we be successful? Current negotiations indicate no. There are too many CNs and trainers on ARAPA for them to cancel it now, so if we vote no I expect it will be rolled over with the serviced apartment change included.

Umbrella agreement, this is truly shocking. If we vote yes we have lost any leverage for a long time. They will over staff training to protect against disputes when each clause expires. We will lose any power we have. Can someone explain what that power is in Hong Kong? We have power if we are united, unfortunately we are far from it and will keep moving further from that ideal as more join on reduced terms.

I know I will be labeled as scared, of capitulating, of giving up. I have come to the realisation, when this was recommended and there appears to be no plan in the event of a no vote, that CX is dead as a prosperous career for a pilot. They will hire more and more from anywhere, people will see this as a good deal, commuting to the Philippines or Vietnam, working less days for more than they got working for an airline such as Cebu Pacific or VietJet. I have no loyalty to CX, once it makes sense for me to go home I will but for now that time has not come, I know it will, that is the only certainty I have with my career at CX.
SloppyJoe is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 06:30
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: H.K
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The based crew have heard all the stories as well as the misconceptions as seems like most people haven't even read the TA. 4 different people voting on it and half hadn't even read the whole deal. I cant believe that something as important as this and all the answers I get when I ask specific questions about the deal is not even relevant as the people haven't read the deal. Lots of answers like my mate told me this etc just people listening too other peoples flight deck and even worse bar chat. Unbelievable , thats how the 2016 deal was given away as most people listen to a few loud people and now they want what was in the 2016 deal??? Here we go again!!
If this a NO vote then fine just do it with authority and be prepared to back it up otherwise enough of all the tough talk!!!
Samsonite is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 06:38
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: B050 No SAR No Details
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If CX want to impose this in a punitive firm of retribution, that's their call. It won't be with my blessing.
mothy1583 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 07:43
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They introduced POS18 under the TB probably because they knew that the GC had their backs.
Threethirty is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 08:06
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CC/TB is death by a thousand cuts for CX the chickens are coming home to roost in 2019!

If we vote yes we seriously are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, all you have to do is keep working to your contract.
Avinthenews is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 14:47
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.

When is is the last time the company wanted you to benefit?

Do not vote for anything the company wants you to vote for. It’s a clear sign you settled for lower than they would go.

95% NO and a clear message to escalate. What do you have to lose?
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 05:16
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.
Wise words sir
broadband circuit is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 07:52
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Sqwak7700
Reasons for voting no:

Just one. The company wants you to vote yes.
Sqwak has said it in a nutshell.
FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 08:09
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...flying-manager
Quote:
Cathay Pacific Airways has parachuted one of its star performers – a man barely halfway through leading its company restructure – into a new role tackling an issue central to the loss-making airline’s return to profitability: disgruntled pilots.

Strategic transformation head Alex McGowan is the new general manager for aircrew, sources said. McGowan had lately been in charge of turning around Hong Kong’s flagship carrier, including overseeing 600 job cuts earlier last year.

His main task will be to give the airline’s talks with pilots another shot. They stalled last November over disagreements on pay, benefits and changes to flying schedules.
To shave HK$4 billion (US$510 million) from its books by next year, Cathay Pacific has been pushing for savings on aircrew costs of up to HK$1 billion.
I am not sure that everybody is on the same page here?

It was announced in the SCMP (18 July 2018) that Alex McGowan was parachuted into CX to screw the pilots out of a further HK$1 billion.

A YES vote is just the start and WILL lead to a loss of pilots pay and allowancws to the tune of HK$1 billion.

The Management has ANNOUNCED their intentions and end-game.

How much plainer can the case be for a NO vote


FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 09:21
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Training Ban Immoral

Training Ban might be considered by others to be both Selfish and Immoral.
Hong Kong deserves better..
Bueno Hombre is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.