The end of arapa
The days of $70k to pay your mortgage or $100k to rent one of those nice places in Kowloon will be gone by Christmas. A new deal is coming, it won't be terrible but you will all sign it because there is nowhere else to go. It does't matter if you think it's fair. Life's not fair. You will just be happy not be be on the scrap heap like half the other Pilots in the world. Also if you are anywhere near 50 your career is probably over if you loose your job now.
Last edited by Busbitch; 16th Aug 2020 at 01:19.
The days of $70k to pay your mortgage or $100k to rent one of those nice places in Kowloon will be gone by Christmas. A new deal is coming, it won't be terrible but you will all sign it because there is nowhere else to go. It does't matter if you think it's fair. Life's not fair. You will just be happy not be be on the scrap heap like half the other Pilots in the world. Also if you are anywhere near 50 your career is probably over if you loose your job now.
Housing changes will mean dramatic lifestyle changes for many if they cut deep. Those who have houses/ apartments may be better off than those dependant on renting due refinancing options. But who really knows?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARAPA has been gone for three years now and is highly unlikely to ever be negotiated again or put to a vote to ratify an agreement over the housing allowance. Obviously the company still pays an allowance though as this is a contractural requirement to comply with the Accommodation and Rental Assistance clause.
I can only assume the original poster was referring to this payment when he made reference to ARAPA. In order for the company to cease this payment they’d be required to offer new contracts to eligible COS99 and COS08 crew. It’s arguable that the issue of a productivity based payment system has actually been a higher priority than any other aspect of our contracts, so it’s highly likely that if the company did offer new contracts that they won’t change one aspect of it but many. Not just productivity and housing but provident fund, CEA, payment increments, leave, seniority, list mergers, recruitment policy in regards to DEFO/DEC, etc. as well as adjusting non contractural allowances such as HKPA.
It’s also highly likely that it won’t be just one pilot group offered a new contract, but everyone within the group. The pain will be shared, although not equally. Until we see the devil in the detail we really have no idea of the effect it will have on individuals or if it will result in lifestyle adjustments.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 16th Aug 2020 at 05:11.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a highly-experienced pilot will have trouble resurrecting their careers post-COVID. It's probably going to be hardest for the inexperienced or command-less.
Housing changes will mean dramatic lifestyle changes for many if they cut deep. Those who have houses/ apartments may be better off than those dependant on renting due refinancing options. But who really knows?
Housing changes will mean dramatic lifestyle changes for many if they cut deep. Those who have houses/ apartments may be better off than those dependant on renting due refinancing options. But who really knows?
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not sure everyone quite understands what the current arrangements are. Certainly the original poster is confused.
ARAPA has been gone for three years now and is highly unlikely to ever be negotiated again or put to a vote to ratify an agreement over the housing allowance. Obviously the company still pays an allowance though as this is a contractural requirement to comply with the Accommodation and Rental Assistance clause.
I can only assume the original poster was referring to this payment when he made reference to ARAPA. In order for the company to cease this payment they’d be required to offer new contracts. It’s arguable that the issue of a productivity based payment system has actually been a higher priority than any other aspect of our contracts, so it’s highly likely that if the company did offer new contracts that they won’t change one aspect of it but many. Not just productivity and housing but provident fund, CEA, payment increments, leave, seniority, list mergers, recruitment policy in regards to DEFO/DEC, etc. as well as adjusting non contractural allowances such as HKPA.
It’s also highly likely that it won’t be just one pilot group offered a new contract, but everyone within the group. The pain will be shared, although not equally. Until we see the devil in the detail we really have no idea of the effect it will have on individuals or if it will result in lifestyle adjustments.
ARAPA has been gone for three years now and is highly unlikely to ever be negotiated again or put to a vote to ratify an agreement over the housing allowance. Obviously the company still pays an allowance though as this is a contractural requirement to comply with the Accommodation and Rental Assistance clause.
I can only assume the original poster was referring to this payment when he made reference to ARAPA. In order for the company to cease this payment they’d be required to offer new contracts. It’s arguable that the issue of a productivity based payment system has actually been a higher priority than any other aspect of our contracts, so it’s highly likely that if the company did offer new contracts that they won’t change one aspect of it but many. Not just productivity and housing but provident fund, CEA, payment increments, leave, seniority, list mergers, recruitment policy in regards to DEFO/DEC, etc. as well as adjusting non contractural allowances such as HKPA.
It’s also highly likely that it won’t be just one pilot group offered a new contract, but everyone within the group. The pain will be shared, although not equally. Until we see the devil in the detail we really have no idea of the effect it will have on individuals or if it will result in lifestyle adjustments.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is contractual to pay housing assistance/HKPA for all of us. The levels are policy. So $1 is still an ARAP payment for someone who was getting $100K last month in rental assistance. As I have stated on these forums, and in all the TA18 forums, the amount can vary. If it varies too much - then it is challengeable in court. As I said - what was defines "too much" in Sep 2020 is very different to what the amount/percentage would have been in Dec 2019.
In terms of even pain? I am not so sure - somehow I think i am in the demographic that will be hit hardest. If they put us on onto current levels of HKPA - that hurts less than half the pilots here. And where would we go? If they tweak HKPA as well - then a lot of pain for the expats very little pain for HKPA recipients.
So yeah - if there is pain I will almost guarantee it won't be (fairly) shared - pretty sure my demographic will be hit hardest!
In terms of even pain? I am not so sure - somehow I think i am in the demographic that will be hit hardest. If they put us on onto current levels of HKPA - that hurts less than half the pilots here. And where would we go? If they tweak HKPA as well - then a lot of pain for the expats very little pain for HKPA recipients.
So yeah - if there is pain I will almost guarantee it won't be (fairly) shared - pretty sure my demographic will be hit hardest!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is contractual to pay housing assistance/HKPA for all of us. The levels are policy. So $1 is still an ARAP payment for someone who was getting $100K last month in rental assistance. As I have stated on these forums, and in all the TA18 forums, the amount can vary. If it varies too much - then it is challengeable in court. As I said - what was defines "too much" in Sep 2020 is very different to what the amount/percentage would have been in Dec 2019.
In terms of even pain? I am not so sure - somehow I think i am in the demographic that will be hit hardest. If they put us on onto current levels of HKPA - that hurts less than half the pilots here. And where would we go? If they tweak HKPA as well - then a lot of pain for the expats very little pain for HKPA recipients.
So yeah - if there is pain I will almost guarantee it won't be (fairly) shared - pretty sure my demographic will be hit hardest!
In terms of even pain? I am not so sure - somehow I think i am in the demographic that will be hit hardest. If they put us on onto current levels of HKPA - that hurts less than half the pilots here. And where would we go? If they tweak HKPA as well - then a lot of pain for the expats very little pain for HKPA recipients.
So yeah - if there is pain I will almost guarantee it won't be (fairly) shared - pretty sure my demographic will be hit hardest!
I’m in agreement with you that the pain won’t be shared equally. It never is. That’s life.
I’m not sure how much sympathy our demographic that failed to negotiate a common retirement age while “enjoying” 10 years of extra work can argue we’ll be hit the hardest. In the game of swings and roundabouts there won’t be many tears for us.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 16th Aug 2020 at 17:16.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The housing rental levels are contractual"
I hope I’m wrong but I wouldn’t plan on relying on current contractual rights.
Under restructuring laws employment is not automatically transferred between entities as a result of restructuring.
Either;
The employee accepts the offer of employment with the new entity,
The employee resigns, or
The employment is terminated by the employer on grounds of redundancy (IAW Employment Ordinance Cap 57)
I hope I’m wrong but I wouldn’t plan on relying on current contractual rights.
Under restructuring laws employment is not automatically transferred between entities as a result of restructuring.
Either;
The employee accepts the offer of employment with the new entity,
The employee resigns, or
The employment is terminated by the employer on grounds of redundancy (IAW Employment Ordinance Cap 57)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The housing rental levels are contractural. Sometimes you put too much emphasis on numbers while ignoring words. “adjusted to reflect market conditions in Hong Kong” while not being rock solid, is probably why they’ve only been adjusted to reflect market conditions in Hong Kong. Sure, market conditions are currently weak, so there’s no surprise the allowance currently reflects this. That’s exactly what the contract stipulates.
Up to you - believe the bush lawyers amongst us, or the legal advice prepared for the HKAOA by specialists in HK labour/employment law!
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: The Forbidden City
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some home owners and all boat owners have their payment in regards to Housing and Rental Assistance fixed, irrespective of the latest changes to ARAPA or ARAP. Can a change of company policy affect this agreement between individuals and the company? Certainly the company can try and certainly the affected individuals will seek redress through the courts.
It’s not all that hard to find lawyers who will argue anything including disagreeing with NC’s “100% wrong” assertion. When it comes to the courts no lawyer will give any client a 100% guarantee of a particular finding.
So a court case is inevitable whether the company chooses to significantly alter the housing allowance or if it chooses to re-write everyone’s contracts.
I suspect they’d rather go to court having taken a giant bite rather than a tasting lick.
Any expensive lawsuit funded by the HKAOA that benefits only the (former) expat pilots will not be popular with the majority of the HKAOA members and will result in a massive exodus, another win for the company!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect this would be the company’s preferred path rather than merely adjusting company policies. By using this option the company can tidy up a wish list of outstanding issues.
Some home owners and all boat owners have their payment in regards to Housing and Rental Assistance fixed, irrespective of the latest changes to ARAPA or ARAP. Can a change of company policy affect this agreement between individuals and the company? Certainly the company can try and certainly the affected individuals will seek redress through the courts.
It’s not all that hard to find lawyers who will argue anything including disagreeing with NC’s “100% wrong” assertion. When it comes to the courts no lawyer will give any client a 100% guarantee of a particular finding.
So a court case is inevitable whether the company chooses to significantly alter the housing allowance or if it chooses to re-write everyone’s contracts.
I suspect they’d rather go to court having taken a giant bite rather than a tasting lick.
Some home owners and all boat owners have their payment in regards to Housing and Rental Assistance fixed, irrespective of the latest changes to ARAPA or ARAP. Can a change of company policy affect this agreement between individuals and the company? Certainly the company can try and certainly the affected individuals will seek redress through the courts.
It’s not all that hard to find lawyers who will argue anything including disagreeing with NC’s “100% wrong” assertion. When it comes to the courts no lawyer will give any client a 100% guarantee of a particular finding.
So a court case is inevitable whether the company chooses to significantly alter the housing allowance or if it chooses to re-write everyone’s contracts.
I suspect they’d rather go to court having taken a giant bite rather than a tasting lick.
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?
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nimbus
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
I know, call me a dreamer...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.