Elephant in the forum
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elephant in the forum
Why would you remain a member of the AOA?
What benefits are there?
We're all technically company men/women now, so why donate my 1% to pay for the general secretary's living and travel expenses?
What benefits are there?
We're all technically company men/women now, so why donate my 1% to pay for the general secretary's living and travel expenses?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A union derives it's power from its ability to inflict strife on the company. Right now your union has very little real power.
A non negotiated, imposed deal which vastly favors one side will never last. Eventually the tables will turn and the jobs will return. This time all the pilots will be on the same POS contract. If your plan is to abandon ship at the first possible chance, fine, but if you actually want to stay with CX, then the union is your only hope of one day returning to a decent contract.
Imho the salary numbers are actually not bad, if you can actually work enough hours every month. Other parts of that contract; it is hard to fathom that they are actually legal.
A non negotiated, imposed deal which vastly favors one side will never last. Eventually the tables will turn and the jobs will return. This time all the pilots will be on the same POS contract. If your plan is to abandon ship at the first possible chance, fine, but if you actually want to stay with CX, then the union is your only hope of one day returning to a decent contract.
Imho the salary numbers are actually not bad, if you can actually work enough hours every month. Other parts of that contract; it is hard to fathom that they are actually legal.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Asia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really believe this? I wish I shared your optimism but the fact is the industry is dead in the water for the next 10 years minimum. Wake up and smell the coffee, they won, the union is now a loss of license insurer and nothing else.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Wan Chai
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP is right, loss of licence is the only reason to retain anymore.
They have proven as always that they have no power in any company dealings. Conditions deteriorated to this with the union sitting idle. At least the DPA tried.
They have proven as always that they have no power in any company dealings. Conditions deteriorated to this with the union sitting idle. At least the DPA tried.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A union has no purpose onto itself. If pilots don't want to be unionised, then they simply do not form one. Or they abolish what they had.
In Hong Kong, after the 49ers, the HKAOA has had no real influence one way or the other. It has nevertheless served a purpose, which is to legitimise many of the Company's actions. Have no doubt, the outcome would be the same with or without a union. The only real threat holding the company in check is massive, individual, unmanageable resignations as a result of them going a step too far.
Today, unmanageable resignations is certainly not a threat, with plenty of time to get the remaining cos18 workforce into position once the dust clears. So no, if you don't want a union then simply don't have one. It really makes no difference.
In Hong Kong, after the 49ers, the HKAOA has had no real influence one way or the other. It has nevertheless served a purpose, which is to legitimise many of the Company's actions. Have no doubt, the outcome would be the same with or without a union. The only real threat holding the company in check is massive, individual, unmanageable resignations as a result of them going a step too far.
Today, unmanageable resignations is certainly not a threat, with plenty of time to get the remaining cos18 workforce into position once the dust clears. So no, if you don't want a union then simply don't have one. It really makes no difference.
Last edited by quadspeed; 25th Oct 2020 at 15:43.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will have their jobs protected when the next round of cuts come, as the company always protects its trainers. Especially the ones who joined during the training ban, they LOVE these sorts of cretins. Oh and the 95k housing during the transition deal vs 68k for the rest of the mere mortals was a nice touch.
Karma is the only thing that will get them, and it will.
Karma is the only thing that will get them, and it will.
Last edited by Dilbert68; 26th Oct 2020 at 08:57.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As is their future remuneration. Individually communicated to each trainer.
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: FAWB
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Why is ARAP 21 for Training Captains capped at only 95k and not higher?'
"All Training Captains will be capped at the same amount as they receive from the company at
present."
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also cancelled that financial support very quickly and have since squandered away all leverage to less than zero and screwed up virtually everything they touched every step of the way to help get us where we are now.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before one whines about a union, I think a person has to have a good and honest look in the mirror.
There's no question (in my mind at least) that the face of the union (and of the various TUs) represents the face and character of the membership as a whole collectively in that particular group. Now, this face might not be what you thought it to be (and/or YOUR face might not be what you thought it to be), but ask yourself how many fights have YOU been willing to take on at personal risk to yourself. How many talk big but are really unwilling to take action themselves when faced with confrontation or a difficult decision. Just because the union won't do it (perhaps representing the multitude of people who tend to hide under the bed and lay low) doesn't mean you can't do it yourself; it just means that you might have less resources than everyone together. Have you stepped up to the plate ? It's one thing if you've really tried when it counts--and perhaps had your ideas rejected by the membership. Quite another not to have tried at all or thought someone else would do it.
Now we get to the situation where we don't have anything left to lose. Yet how many will sign over (or trip over themselves to sign over). Ask yourself this--are you pay protected during the transitional period ? It would be quite easy (if the idea was simply to force a new contract and 'right size' things for a difficult time) to put in a pay protection clause during the transitional period (if the contract were indeed legitimate). Preventing subsequent termination (with no regard to seniority) on a whim. Allowing for job stability albeit at lesser conditions while things shake themselves out. If the intent were to do this, the contract would assure employment albeit at reduced pay until things got better. So are you pay protected ?
If not, why are you signing it ? What sense could that make ?
You sign (giving up any rights towards recourse) and potentially get terminated in the next cull.
You don't sign and potentially get terminated (but retain your legal rights of recourse).
Either one has the same level of risk in the longer term; if you don't sign you may or may not get terminated (remaining on the old contract for housing, allowance, etc). If you do sign, you may or may not get terminated (under the new conditions). One gives up any chance of recourse (and guarantees lesser conditions); one does not. Yet how many will sign out of fear or trying to grasp at something--anything at all. Do you really want to live like this ?
There's no question (in my mind at least) that the face of the union (and of the various TUs) represents the face and character of the membership as a whole collectively in that particular group. Now, this face might not be what you thought it to be (and/or YOUR face might not be what you thought it to be), but ask yourself how many fights have YOU been willing to take on at personal risk to yourself. How many talk big but are really unwilling to take action themselves when faced with confrontation or a difficult decision. Just because the union won't do it (perhaps representing the multitude of people who tend to hide under the bed and lay low) doesn't mean you can't do it yourself; it just means that you might have less resources than everyone together. Have you stepped up to the plate ? It's one thing if you've really tried when it counts--and perhaps had your ideas rejected by the membership. Quite another not to have tried at all or thought someone else would do it.
Now we get to the situation where we don't have anything left to lose. Yet how many will sign over (or trip over themselves to sign over). Ask yourself this--are you pay protected during the transitional period ? It would be quite easy (if the idea was simply to force a new contract and 'right size' things for a difficult time) to put in a pay protection clause during the transitional period (if the contract were indeed legitimate). Preventing subsequent termination (with no regard to seniority) on a whim. Allowing for job stability albeit at lesser conditions while things shake themselves out. If the intent were to do this, the contract would assure employment albeit at reduced pay until things got better. So are you pay protected ?
If not, why are you signing it ? What sense could that make ?
You sign (giving up any rights towards recourse) and potentially get terminated in the next cull.
You don't sign and potentially get terminated (but retain your legal rights of recourse).
Either one has the same level of risk in the longer term; if you don't sign you may or may not get terminated (remaining on the old contract for housing, allowance, etc). If you do sign, you may or may not get terminated (under the new conditions). One gives up any chance of recourse (and guarantees lesser conditions); one does not. Yet how many will sign out of fear or trying to grasp at something--anything at all. Do you really want to live like this ?