legal action
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Liam I enjoy your inputs, don't care what you think undies or dead person. I now have spoken to two of the people involved in the last discussions between the company and the AOA. One of the most senior of the AOA team and NR. There was an offer made in principle from NR, it went along the lines of 'this is what we are prepared to accept' it included all I mentioned previously. The offer was passed to AOA head shed and they came back with what they said were 'party stoppers' this included all 49ers back with no interviews and eg credit time for guys on sick leave amongst other ridiculous demands. You can all bull **** until the cows come home but this cat is now completely anti AOA management. On another tack, the offer, OFFER included all captains on A scales, there are now - including captains on course - around 40 of those. Talks about talks - spin doctor crap.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly:
You say there was an offer from Nick R. in principle only. Didn't know if you noticed but Nick does not have any principles. He is the guy that fired the 49ers in the first place. Dave called it on Nick's recommendation. Who do you think is running Flight Ops, not Ken? Nick told the AOA (April) in front of the Labor Board that he would just fire 20-30 Pilots and the rest will be so scared that they will tow the company line.
The most Senior of the AOA team will not sell out any 49er for the sake of money. We are not Singapore Airlines yet. That is why we did not have a vote. Nick mentions a lot of things in passing/principle but never delivers because he did not have the power (back then) to do so. Even if the AOA sold out the 49ers and accepted (by vote), Nick would have gone to Dave and he would have turned it down. I think Dave is a bubble off centre anyway but that is another story.
You state other ridiculous demands. Who did you get that from, the man of principle? Ever hear of negotiation. Obviously you know nothing about it.
Nick R will tell you anything that will get you anti-AOA; he is a used car salesmen and is good at Psychological Ops. He has told so many lies in the past and he cannot be trusted. But he always manages to sells cars some how.
If you wanted to sell out on the 49ers, you should have stayed in the Union but I think that is in another thread somewhere.
As I said before, the present Union will not settle for money until the 49ers that what to come back are giving a chance to come back because they were unjustly terminated.
There is an easy face saving fix to this whole mess, but Cathay does not want it fixed. They want Total Control.
BlueEagle, hope the surname is acceptable. If not, yellow card me again and it will be on a first name basis. We are all one happy family anyway.
Feet still not nailed to the floor.
You say there was an offer from Nick R. in principle only. Didn't know if you noticed but Nick does not have any principles. He is the guy that fired the 49ers in the first place. Dave called it on Nick's recommendation. Who do you think is running Flight Ops, not Ken? Nick told the AOA (April) in front of the Labor Board that he would just fire 20-30 Pilots and the rest will be so scared that they will tow the company line.
The most Senior of the AOA team will not sell out any 49er for the sake of money. We are not Singapore Airlines yet. That is why we did not have a vote. Nick mentions a lot of things in passing/principle but never delivers because he did not have the power (back then) to do so. Even if the AOA sold out the 49ers and accepted (by vote), Nick would have gone to Dave and he would have turned it down. I think Dave is a bubble off centre anyway but that is another story.
You state other ridiculous demands. Who did you get that from, the man of principle? Ever hear of negotiation. Obviously you know nothing about it.
Nick R will tell you anything that will get you anti-AOA; he is a used car salesmen and is good at Psychological Ops. He has told so many lies in the past and he cannot be trusted. But he always manages to sells cars some how.
If you wanted to sell out on the 49ers, you should have stayed in the Union but I think that is in another thread somewhere.
As I said before, the present Union will not settle for money until the 49ers that what to come back are giving a chance to come back because they were unjustly terminated.
There is an easy face saving fix to this whole mess, but Cathay does not want it fixed. They want Total Control.
BlueEagle, hope the surname is acceptable. If not, yellow card me again and it will be on a first name basis. We are all one happy family anyway.
Feet still not nailed to the floor.
Last edited by Turbo Beaver; 18th Oct 2002 at 04:28.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Determining the levels of 'principle' displayed by individuals is never easy and generally most subjective. There should never have been a 49er issue in the first place, brought on by union intransigence and over reaction from the company. The re-employment of the 49ers, unfortunately is now a forlorn hope. Their last real chance came during the negotiation of that last offer when the company stated it would accept all back with a face saving (for the company) interview 'to assess company loyalties'. I think, after much discussion with senior parties on both sides of the fence, that there was most assuredly a chance of settlement back then which included the terminated troops but any settlement now will not. Talking about principles, what do you think of the notion that the very senior managers wanted to terminate more like 200 rather than 50 and NR talked them down. Further, how can you be selling out the 49ers when they get their jobs back? The current strategy of the AOA sold out the 49ers in the first place and they continue to pursue a strategy contrary to the interests of the 49ers and other large groups of the pilot body. Almost 50% non-union pilot body now. When it passes that figure watch out for the new union. They might actually get somewhere with the company.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really think the 49ers were brought on by the Unions stubbornness. You call over nine years of being bullied, having our contract degraded, being forced to sign a new contract or be fired, being handed a new contract with the options sign or sign, being pigheaded. I beg to differ.
An over-reaction by the company, at least you are correct on that point. All the Union published was to work to their contract. The company thought we were going to walk out and chartered 17 Mainland aircraft. Now how does the company explain 17 aircraft to the board when all the Pilots were willing to work? The company said we were on a sick out that week, but we were all sitting home on reserve. They hired the 17 mainland aircraft so they may as well put them to work.
This was all very embarrassing for David and Nick. How do we get back at them? We will fire some of them. Twenty-five managers had less than a week to pick names. There were no reason except if one of the fop managers, crew controller, personal manager, etc had a dislike for an individual, and they were gone. I don't think that is a good enough reason to terminate someone. It was all done very quickly.
Nick is such a nice guy saving 150 jobs. David and Nick don't have a problem destroying 50 plus lives. WOW, I should put Nick and Dave on my Christmas card list.
They probably wanted to fire 200 Pilots. It sounds like something our managers would do, but when they did the numbers they could not afford to do so. If they knew 9/11 was going to happen, they would have definitely fired 200.
Nick must have told you he would accept all 49ers back. The interviews were a condition so they could not select any of the union guys. They don't want them back because they have shown real leadership, but Nick sees them working for the other side. They are loyal union guys, but also can be loyal company guys if given the chance. Stop attacking the Pilots and the Pilots will be very loyal. It has happened in the past, but Nick was in New Guinea. Nick sees it as me against them. He has no idea of what being a Pilot is all about.
The day we start to have two unions at this company is the sure death sign of the working conditions here. People will start to leave. Not what the company wants in the expansion that they want/have to do.
Why don't you get the other 50% of the non-union pilots into the union and vote down the current way the union is going? That would make a lot more sense than starting another union. Those pilots outside the union don't have representation from anyone. They are the biggest whiners but don't want to do anything about it, but keep their head in the sand. All the rules are in place to vote the current President out if you have the numbers. If I voted for Gore, I would not give up my citizenship because "Six Shooter" Bush got in. If you got the numbers, get back into the fight to get this affair settled. Then maybe all the current non-members will be the majority and the so-called militants will be the opposition.
An over-reaction by the company, at least you are correct on that point. All the Union published was to work to their contract. The company thought we were going to walk out and chartered 17 Mainland aircraft. Now how does the company explain 17 aircraft to the board when all the Pilots were willing to work? The company said we were on a sick out that week, but we were all sitting home on reserve. They hired the 17 mainland aircraft so they may as well put them to work.
This was all very embarrassing for David and Nick. How do we get back at them? We will fire some of them. Twenty-five managers had less than a week to pick names. There were no reason except if one of the fop managers, crew controller, personal manager, etc had a dislike for an individual, and they were gone. I don't think that is a good enough reason to terminate someone. It was all done very quickly.
Nick is such a nice guy saving 150 jobs. David and Nick don't have a problem destroying 50 plus lives. WOW, I should put Nick and Dave on my Christmas card list.
They probably wanted to fire 200 Pilots. It sounds like something our managers would do, but when they did the numbers they could not afford to do so. If they knew 9/11 was going to happen, they would have definitely fired 200.
Nick must have told you he would accept all 49ers back. The interviews were a condition so they could not select any of the union guys. They don't want them back because they have shown real leadership, but Nick sees them working for the other side. They are loyal union guys, but also can be loyal company guys if given the chance. Stop attacking the Pilots and the Pilots will be very loyal. It has happened in the past, but Nick was in New Guinea. Nick sees it as me against them. He has no idea of what being a Pilot is all about.
The day we start to have two unions at this company is the sure death sign of the working conditions here. People will start to leave. Not what the company wants in the expansion that they want/have to do.
Why don't you get the other 50% of the non-union pilots into the union and vote down the current way the union is going? That would make a lot more sense than starting another union. Those pilots outside the union don't have representation from anyone. They are the biggest whiners but don't want to do anything about it, but keep their head in the sand. All the rules are in place to vote the current President out if you have the numbers. If I voted for Gore, I would not give up my citizenship because "Six Shooter" Bush got in. If you got the numbers, get back into the fight to get this affair settled. Then maybe all the current non-members will be the majority and the so-called militants will be the opposition.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post TB, logical and rational. I think you are probably under estimating the continued union action against the company. Must be 10 ish years now. In that time not one company offer has been accepted. Some of them quite reasonable. There is no reason for the company to destroy the conditions of the aircrew, it makes no sense, particularly financially. The swings and roundabouts of management philosophy is back to - lets keep a happy and settled workforce - training and proficiency costs etc. You make issue with the 'sign this or else' apparent attitude of the company, well I propose to you that should one or any of the company proposals have been accepted we would never have got there. I said before, when Scargill left the coalminers union HIS union leadership said of him "he never understood that a union must negotiate the best deal possible before a deal is forced on the membership". I have also said that a part time union leadership is no match for a full time management body if they follow an intransigent route. Where do we go from here? I want the 49ers back but this union leadership neither listens nor understands. This is my opinion and I don't dislike them as persons and will happily quoff ales with them.
Shortly, We accepted the COS 94 and then were forced into accepting COS 99 and then the company failed to keep their side of the contract i.e. to improve rostering etc. I think we've done our bit, how many more offers do you anticipate?!!!
Last edited by BusyB; 21st Oct 2002 at 23:33.
Shortly said:
Wasn't it NR that invented the idea of "Let's sack 50 of them and the rest of the pilots will fall into line"?
Talking about principles, what do you think of the notion that the very senior managers wanted to terminate more like 200 rather than 50 and NR talked them down.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really think that its time to out shortly.....It must be obvious that his is a fictitious persona contructed entirely by management or their proxies. Although his postings may sound reasonable, they hold carefully contructed inaccuracies, in the same vein as 'how often do you beat your wife...' that are carefully calibrated to purvey a management skewed message. Just read each post carefully....... it is fairly obvious that freehills has employed a spare shrink.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow what a compliment, thank you rait. Not the Freehills bit, nor the trick cyclist bit either and I'm not a shirt lifter so no need to be outed. But the thought that I could be a ficticious character, beauty, darn I've had a middle aged moment and forgotten the guy who had many personae. Rats it'll come back to me when I least want it to. Ah that's it Walter Mitty lol.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly,
It really is time you gave up as you have been well and truly outed - shirt lifter or not. You really are the most amazing purveyor of cr-p that ever posted on this bulletin board and are light years ahead of 411A.
You are also an arrogant sob
Why should TB care what you think of the technical merits of his post? Perhaps you were his english professor in a former life.
Please go away.
It really is time you gave up as you have been well and truly outed - shirt lifter or not. You really are the most amazing purveyor of cr-p that ever posted on this bulletin board and are light years ahead of 411A.
You are also an arrogant sob
Good post TB, logical and rational.
Please go away.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Mole, ever read The Wind in the Willows? Are you supposed to be a caricature of that 'good old Moley'? Well you have succeeded you are one nasty Mole, maybe you come from a dimension where rudeness and stupidity are valued. Rant on. I wasn't 'scoring' TB's post just congratulating him on a very readable one. Why must disagreement mean enmity? Just because we don't have the same, at the moment, politico - industrial beliefs, it doesn't follow that we never have had or never will have. Small minded irrational people should have restricted access to keyboards.
Garhauer - 1100 union membership sure there is.
BusyB - please re-read my post, perhaps if any company offer had been accepted in and around those times the COS changes would not have been forced.
Flexible Response - I understand not all people are as honest as you but from all I have gleaned from many conversations the firings were not instigated by NR. Put yourself in the company's shoes for a moment, a long term of continuous union intransigence and action, that action mildly increased with threats of more to come, reasonable offers rejected, loads low and flights cancelled, company - to meet the then demand - over manned. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Every brick in the wall between the AOA and the company will have to be removed eventually, know any good stone masons?
Garhauer - 1100 union membership sure there is.
BusyB - please re-read my post, perhaps if any company offer had been accepted in and around those times the COS changes would not have been forced.
Flexible Response - I understand not all people are as honest as you but from all I have gleaned from many conversations the firings were not instigated by NR. Put yourself in the company's shoes for a moment, a long term of continuous union intransigence and action, that action mildly increased with threats of more to come, reasonable offers rejected, loads low and flights cancelled, company - to meet the then demand - over manned. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Every brick in the wall between the AOA and the company will have to be removed eventually, know any good stone masons?
Last edited by shortly; 23rd Oct 2002 at 02:39.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off Topic
OK gentlemen, you have made your feelings known but each of you have the same rights on this BB so, please, no more exchanges of abuse or I may as well close this thread.
Thanks,
BlueEagle - Moderator
Thanks,
BlueEagle - Moderator
Turbo Beaver said:
By National News in London.
9 October 2002
(c) 2002 South China Morning Post Publishers Limited, Hong Kong. All rights reserved.
So it would seem that:
Some manager thought up the idea.
Some manager gave the idea the green light.
Some manager instigated the idea.
A Court observer also mentioned that it was revealed that some 25 managers and sub-managers were involved in the “Star Chamber” style “executions”.
The lives and careers of some 49 pilots and the lives of their families have been devastated. The damage has been done. The only question that still needs to be addressed is:
What is “some manager” going to do to try and fix the problem, or offer in compensation?
One would think Cathay management would start by actually talking to the AOA rather than exposing the Company’s ethical standards to the public through the necessary disclosure in the various law Courts.
Perhaps the Company could start by paying more money to "Stone Masons" rather than to Freehills?
You say there was an offer from Nick R. in principle only. Didn't know if you noticed but Nick does not have any principles. He is the guy that fired the 49ers in the first place. Dave called it on Nick's recommendation. Who do you think is running Flight Ops, not Ken? Nick told the AOA (April) in front of the Labor Board that he would just fire 20-30 Pilots and the rest will be so scared that they will tow the company line.
9 October 2002
(c) 2002 South China Morning Post Publishers Limited, Hong Kong. All rights reserved.
Cathay Pacific sacked pilots en masse in July last year because they had attitude problems, an airline executive has told a hearing into an unfair dismissal claim in Britain.
Cathay's director of flight operations, Ken Barley, told the Employment Tribunal sitting in Croydon, south London, this week that he had sought legal advice before the sackings.
He had been advised the dismissals could not successfully be challenged in Hong Kong, Mr Barley said in testimony.
Cathay's director of flight operations, Ken Barley, told the Employment Tribunal sitting in Croydon, south London, this week that he had sought legal advice before the sackings.
He had been advised the dismissals could not successfully be challenged in Hong Kong, Mr Barley said in testimony.
Mr Barley told the tribunal that the decision to dismiss the pilots was made in Hong Kong "where the purpose of several meetings (was) to review the employment history of all officers and assess their attitude towards the employer".
Some manager thought up the idea.
Some manager gave the idea the green light.
Some manager instigated the idea.
A Court observer also mentioned that it was revealed that some 25 managers and sub-managers were involved in the “Star Chamber” style “executions”.
The lives and careers of some 49 pilots and the lives of their families have been devastated. The damage has been done. The only question that still needs to be addressed is:
What is “some manager” going to do to try and fix the problem, or offer in compensation?
One would think Cathay management would start by actually talking to the AOA rather than exposing the Company’s ethical standards to the public through the necessary disclosure in the various law Courts.
Perhaps the Company could start by paying more money to "Stone Masons" rather than to Freehills?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree FR. I feel certain both sides, particularly the company dream of someone suggesting a facesafe way out of this quagmire. But the disputees have dug themselves in pretty deep haven't they. Wish I was smart enough to think up a solution suitable to everyone.
