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

The end of arapa

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.

The end of arapa

Old 19th Aug 2020, 07:50
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nimbus
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by Numero Crunchero View Post
I actually agree with some of what you have said here! Quelle surprise!

Where I disagree.....The amounts paid by CX on Level 1 or RFZ or mortgage are POLICY. They spell out in the policy how they come up with those numbers. There is no contract between CX and the pilot stating that their monthly payment is, say, $74,000 per month for life of the mortgage. The Policy states you will get it. So defining a number does not empower its' resilience in the face of corporate change to policy. If I am reading your arguments correctly, you are inferring that those with fixed numbers (whether for life of the mortgage or for 2 year periods) are more 'bullet proof' to variation than those on RFZ or level 1? That is NOT the case. Level 1 is clearly identifiable(by govt indices) and fixed(and varied by terms of the policy)- RFZ is also defined by govt indices (and varied by terms of the policy) - the 2 year rolling is fixed (and varied by terms of the policy) - the 15/25 year lock-in is fixed (by the terms of the policy). But all are under the policy. And the contractual obligation of the company is to provide housing assistance law with the policy. Policy can change unilaterally - and even as optimistic a person as I am, I suspect it will change soon! A large change leading to a significant change in your standard of living is challengeable. But what if you are getting 74K a month in purchasing a property, but you can put out the term of the loan to say 20 years and lower the payments to say 30K per month. You are still living in your flat/house - and CX could pay you 30K and you keep your flat. How have you suffered? Yes you are losing how quickly you were paying it off. But you see my point. Ironically I think the renters have a stronger case - if they are renting for 74K - then they would be materially and immediately affected by a substantial change in policy levels. So yes - not as clear as some people seem to think it is. Which is why the union paid a lot of money getting SC advice on two occasions over the last decade or so. Not as obvious as our bush lawyers would like us to think!

But I agree with your last sentence - a lick would not win in court -a bite(if big enough) would be defendable. But as I have said, what size bite would have been acceptable in 2019 is likely to be smaller than an acceptable bite size in covid times.

Of course the easy way out for them(CX) is for us to sign a new contract - that removes all the ambiguity. Question is - will it be a 1994 "voluntary' offer or a 1999 'sign or be fired' offer. Given the economic environment I tend to lean towards the latter.

Anyway - good debating with you PW

PS people please don't bother telling me the 1999 option can't be done - just go read the Judgements on the 49ers case/appeal etc. Then ask yourself - would a court be as sympathetic to CX pilots today as they were to the 49ers?
I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that a court might side with CX, but the fact is, nobody knows until it happens. Even the 3 courts couldn't reach the same verdict.

The context in the 49ers case was absolutely different than the current one.
​​​​​​Guys were doing a sick-out campaign and fired accordingly (although officially for no reason).
​​​​​​If they let people go in a few months, this would be a case of redundancy. And the redundancy clause in all contracts but POS18 is spelled out very clearly.

I honestly expect the company to try to reduce costs. But I hope they do it legally and by consulting with us first.
It's in everybody's interest to find a compromise.
A lengthy court case and years of lost goodwill won't help any future recovery.

​​​​
Zapp_Brannigan is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 08:05
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: The Forbidden City
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Zapp_Brannigan View Post
But I hope they do it legally and by consulting with us first. ​​​​
Haha like they've ever done that! Dream on.
Curry Lamb is online now  
Old 19th Aug 2020, 09:08
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 558
To be fair this is a completely different situation, one not caused by either party. Hopefully a compromise will actually be sought after this time.

I know, call me a dreamer...
main_dog is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 04:53
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 638
Main Dog
I hope you are right too. I am an optimist at heart.

But as they say - prepare for the worst and hope for the best. (but of course the cynics will call that expectation management)
Numero Crunchero is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 09:55
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 234
Zapp B, you wrote:
"The context in the 49ers case was absolutely different than the current one.
​​​​​​Guys were doing a sick-out campaign and fired accordingly (although officially for no reason).

Where were you when the 49ers were sacked? The above is absolutely rubbish. Read John Warham;s book if you can get a copy.
AnAmusedReader is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 10:14
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nimbus
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by AnAmusedReader View Post
Zapp B, you wrote:
"The context in the 49ers case was absolutely different than the current one.
​​​​​​Guys were doing a sick-out campaign and fired accordingly (although officially for no reason).

Where were you when the 49ers were sacked? The above is absolutely rubbish. Read John Warham;s book if you can get a copy.
I was in HK, and in the union.

Guys were picked because of their role in the "industrial" action (work-to-rule, transforming into sickout)
They were terminated for "no reason" and not because they refused to sign a new contract.
We all know they were picked because of their involvement in the industrial dispute and/or too many days of absence.

This was absolutely not the same situation as now.
There was no talk about redundancies.

Apologies if I am wrong, but please correct me, then.


Zapp_Brannigan is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 12:44
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by Zapp_Brannigan View Post
I was in HK, and in the union.

Guys were picked because of their role in the "industrial" action (work-to-rule, transforming into sickout)
They were terminated for "no reason" and not because they refused to sign a new contract.
We all know they were picked because of their involvement in the industrial dispute and/or too many days of absence.

This was absolutely not the same situation as now.
There was no talk about redundancies.

Apologies if I am wrong, but please correct me, then.
The procedures for redundancies are clearly covered in all of the various contracts. Basically it's reverse seniority order with varying degrees of pay protection. That's it.

Like some other carriers, the company is free to negotiate a meaningful voluntary retirement/reduction scheme that might be attractive to higher seniority individuals and might attract enough to mitigate furloughing from the bottom up. That also doesn't violate any of the contracts.
Slasher1 is online now  
Old 20th Aug 2020, 14:11
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: planet ****witt
Age: 34
Posts: 42
Couldnít disagree more with slasher. The redundancy clause in the contract is only there to make you feel good. When push comes to shove and the company really needs or wants to remove pilots they have the Clause in the contract theyíll use. Sec 35, says they only need to give you 3 months notice. The threat of sign a new contract or take a pre determined buy out (probably 3 months salary) is very real.

For all of you on here who say the union will take the company to court for violating the contract you need to look at what happened just last summer. The company invoked sec 35 on multiple pilots for their personal view points on the political situation in Hong Kong. Where was the union in protecting them???

As for ARAPA the same will be true. Iíve already started to make arrangements as I know I wonít be receiving what I get now. I suspect it will be something closer to HKPA if we are Lucky. Iím trying to stay positive but letís not kid ourselves. Cathay is not the type of company to miss an opportunity to slash costs.
I agree that any cuts should be temporary until the company returns to profitability. However I wonít be holding my breath on that one.

The salary for a pilot at Cathay will soon be no better than that of a LCC. HKE is the new target as is COS18. The future of the airline is locally employed pilots. Expats are no longer the desired demographic, and an extension to that I would say bases are doomed.

As for the political situation in HKG. I ask myself why would anyone want to come here. What was once a great country has been ruined by the supreme leader to the North.

reazasassain is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.