Extension Post 55
 

Well GMAs newsletter says it all. No automatic extension on pax fleet (unless C&T) for over 55s going on-shore.

Well done AOA, force them back to the table.

Well done AOA.

I suggest not chasing them back to the table. If they want age 65, let's have a poll of the membership and if it turns out that we don't want it then leave it as it is. The way in which the company were trying to push this through was so heavily skewed in favour of the senior pilots it was almost laughable. If they really want it, let them come to us and we'll tell them how it is to be done.

So, Loopy, are you not intending to become a senior pilot one day? By then 65 might look mighty attractive the way prices are going up, dollar going down and provident fund not looking too good at 55.

It's good that the company has been knocked back on their first attempt at getting everything their own way. I hope the AOA can sort out a deal that keeps everybody happy (no you can't have any of the stuff I'm smoking) and at the same time keeps the expansion going.

Enjoy your G days with the kids.:)

Retire at 55 on a B scale P fund?????????????????????????


yeah right:{


the way it's going I'll need to work into my next life as well.........:(

My point exactly. But lets get it right this time.

Retirement Age
 

In the UK & Europe Age discrimination laws have come in to protect the workforce. CX had offered in line with these laws retirement of 65.

But the HKAOA come up and say these laws don't apply to us!!!

Who's side is the AOA on?

They have now turned down age 65 retirement in HKG & UK

Making more pilots redundant than CX fired several years ago.

What are the AOA doing?

Strap,

I think you might find that the AOA would like to negotiate a deal that suits everybody as opposed to just a select group of senior pilots. Age 65 being imposed overnight would have set large sections of the pilot group back considerably.

Hopefully a settlement can now be negotiated that is a win/win for everybody concerned.

Nice job AOA - now let's hammer a decent deal out of this.

W2:ok:

I can see the benefit of 65 (I'm older than I look!). However, filling up the bases the way the company wants to is not on. The only people to benefit in the scheme the company tried to bludgeon through were senior captains who were happy to work out of LHR. They got the base, the money and the option to work 'till 65 - everyone else with a European interest lost.

The people who should be compensated for an increase in retirement age are those who are going to have their commands delayed without the benefit of bypass pay. If they want to just increase retirement age on a base then they should also look at overhauling the base structure.

Retirement age 55 and bypass pay were in my CoS when I signed up and if change is required then it should be negotiated fairly. The TUPE negotiations were the first step towards fair negotiation so I'm optimistic that the retirement age negotiations can proceed along similar lines......or have I been smoking the same stuff as midnight?

I am sure the Company will not want to see all those "wasted opportunities" going by so let's hope the AOA team have their head on straight when it comes to the talks.

'Un bon effort AOA'! :ok::ok::ok:

Now let's try and get more people back in the AOA fold to push the whole thing forward.

screwed yet again
 

Well I suppose that I should have seen this coming but even I have to admit that it took me totally by surprise .
What they give with one hand they take away with the other . It seems to me that they go out of their way to upset one pilot group or another on a continuous basis .
This could be a deal breaker for many senior C&T staff who had been given a much firmer commitment than an expectation of returning to A scales in April .
I do agree with the concept of bypass pay for the junior pilots who had it in their contracts but to penalize the C&T crews because they couldn't get an agreement is unjust .

I hope PW knows what a can of worms he is opening if he loses 5 or 6 STC's because of this, it is a loss that will take quite some time to recover from

My heart bleeds for you buddy.

Now get with the program.

This should help to boost AOA numbers whichever side of the fence you sit upon. There's only one sure way of getting your voice heard now - The company would like to negotiate the subject and seem to be in rather a hurry to do so.......get your application in quick if you'd like a vote on your future!

Loop, yes and it was good to see such a good number of new joiners and returnees in the latest AOA bulletin. With 50% membership they wipe the floor with you, with 90% they have to listen.

great job AOA :ok::ok::ok:

I have absolutely no problem with guys working to 65 on a-scale, but let's make a deal that is acceptable for everyone.

I did not know we had any "training staff", anyway, they are very easily replaced if CX decide to start training like an airline from the 21st century.:=

so at last the "ST out" brigade have to shut up........................congratulations to the AoA, ST and the negotiating team, unexpected pay increases, further negotiations, whats going on ??

seems like the AoA is doing a damn fine job , especially when you consider how little ammunition they have.......................

Now lets get a deal that suits everyone and pays a descent $$$$$

I can't agree more. Nice one Steve and the AOA and thank you. You have certainly surprised me!

May I suggest that before the next round of negotiations get underway that the GC talks to the membership though.

Perhaps by asking what everybody wants/expects we can avoid a similar fiasco this time around.

I also agree.
Everyone is quick to get on ST and the GC (who are all volunteers by the way) when things don't go 100% our way.
Maybe it's time to give a little credit.
Negotiation is give and take.
Does anyone really believe we are going to get everything we ask for.
Age 65 is the last card we have to play for a while, so lets get as much as we can.
The amount we get depends on membership numbers; remember "we" are the AOA.

I must be missing something on 4 counts
 

1. The company claimed it had to go "onshore" because of NI contributions and the retirement age. It now claims "legal opinion" says neither of these are a player because the aircraft are not UK registered.... so why go "onshore"?

2. House of Lords (the 2nd highest Court in the land) says based guys are UK employees and afforded the protection of UK employment law. Subsequently, 1 QC gives opinion that flying a non-uk registered aircraft(as G Crofts did) exempts you from at least part of UK emploment law and that is now taken as gospel..... so you really can be half pregnant?

3. The company, albeit unwillingly, agrees to raise the pay of extendees on base from B to A. AOA legal opinion says UK retirement law doesn't apply and the company reverts to the status quo of paying B scales and picking and choosing who they extend... somehow this is a win for the AOA?? To win, someone must lose... how did the company lose...?

4. Joblow claims the based C&T will leave and seeks some leverage in the argument. However, the based C&T's were never slow in bragging that once they got flying age 60/65 there would be no requirement to stay in C&T and they would leave anyway.....

I find it difficult to comprehend the unprecedented scale of this climbdown by PW. Did he really miss such an obvious showstopper as "doesn't apply to non-UK registered aircraft". WHAT!!
All that work and time taken to plan (sic) courses, Fleet numbers, etc etc and all because the AOA introduce a fast swerver that hasn't been adequately considered by GMA and his team.
Good luck explaining that one to the Swire Group let alone to your Senior pilots (hardly any of whom are in the AOA.)
Only a Company scared of something makes a point of unnecessarily doubling the profit share and backing away from their own plan in such a humiliating way.
What would that be I wonder?
Not short of crews are we perchance???:D

They can still extend anyone they want, as they have in the past. The degraded terms have not deterred many from extending in the past. The only winners I see on this are UK based FOs who would have missed out on bypass pay - but only those that joined before 1/1/08, the ones that joined after are still screwed.

Someone please explain to me what 'win' I am missing?

I've never met PW but everything I read that he spews forth leads me to believe he has no friends. In this exciting episode, we got:

"...we now have little option but to accept the HKAOA’s position under TUPE and retain a Normal Retirement Age of 55 in the UK contracts of all officers employed under CoS ’99..."

So all of a sudden, TUPE was the AOA's doing and all the 55+ guys can blame the AOA? If it wasn't for the 49ers, all this wouldn't have come to pass.

BB

NC
 

I think the "win" you are missing can be demonstrated by the following;

Please don't think that I have experience in giving sweeties to children, but it involves giving sweeties to children. If you offer to give a child 2 options either 4 sweets for them and 10 to their older and rival sibling, OR 2 sweets each; the immature mind will always happily accept the 2nd option as depriving the rival an additional 6 sweets is seen as a "win".

Obviously, the mature mind would elect the first option as 4 sweets are better than 2. The intelligent mind, however, would enthuse about option 1 as children in general are receiving 14 sweets, which is much better than children receiving only 4 and the other 10 going in a fund to be fertively distributed by the "sweet management" as some form of hitherto undisclosed bonus...

Oops... sorry got carried away.. sugar rush.. too many sweets...

kenfoggo
 

Tis an excellent question....

I suspect the answer will be provided by an agrieved but motivated 55+ with a huge set of danglies and a equally huge bucket of cash.....

Does such an animal exist?

kenfoggo
 

To paraphrase Rumsfeld, it is an unknown known rather than a known unknown. ;-)

Plan on 55. If 65 comes along, then consider it a bonus!

What The Age Law Actually Says
 

A quick google reveals:

I do not think the AOA is arguing that the law does not apply: it certainly does and that is why the company has had to move on shore and pay tax. Thing is, when you apply the law, you find that pilots flying non UK A/C are excluded.

Milly

The Tail Reg issue is under the age discrimination act nothing to do with tax liabilities.

And CX in all their wisdom (sic again) didn't find a Barrister who knew the current application of the law???
Too extraordinary for even me to believe.
Something else is afoot for sure and it aint 12 inches!!!;)

Cathay win once again, not the AOA.

Thats about it.

Cathay has won nothing - this is just the first salvo.
If negotiated correctly (and no backdown) by the AOA then we can all win from this. Those A scalers that feel agrieved are justified - their expectations were based on what the employer communicated but am sure many saw the injustice for the junior crew and those that did not were walking around with their head up their ass. In the near term I believe A scalers too will win from a properly negotiated position. Flt Ops is obviously concerned about the fall out from this latest development and so have thrown 15.5% into the pot for the C & T and extendees on the Frtr fleet to stem resignations-they are doing this because they are scared of the ramifications---- not because they are benovelent.

Observation - GMA's wording "....... as a result we now have little option but to accept the AOA's posn........" is a subtle attempt at painting the AOA as the bad guy in this battle. This is not the case. Had the Company got proper legal advice then they would not be in such a position that they now have, in the minimium, to pay an extra 15.5% in the near term for the same productivity that they got last week.

There is only one party with egg on their face.

Finally, I urge all of you (AOA member or not) to fill out the upcomming survey from the AOA into crew's thoughts and expectations. You may find it an eye opener.

Actually, nothing has changed. So no-one has won anything. Everyone employed before Jan 1st, 2008 signed COS that had retirement age of 55. :ugh:

Those expectations haven't changed. Just because you would have benefited from something that improved your situation, and now that is taken away, it does not mean that Cathay have won. It just means that the situation has remained the same.

A real win would have been if Cathay negotiated an ammendment to retirement age that benefited the pilots as well as Cathay. That has yet to happen.

Can someone answer this conundrum?

If a CX management pilot is dismissed for not doing what is written down

which managers should also be dismissed for the same offence

re GMA CoS 08 Update - 08OCT07 :confused::confused:

This is a much bigger cock up than the fly by too. Watch this space. CX Board don't like being made to look foolish.:=

All gone amazingly quiet?

Update available?

N

I can't believe the arrogance of these A scale captains bleating about RA 55. Most of the senior C&T's in HKG have been accepting almost any CoS to stay on just so they can carry on playing sugar daddy to their 30 year old children or not have to stay at home and talk to their wife. CX is the only life they have and they will sign anything to stay on knowing the'yre a sad old nobody when they can't hide behind their 4 stripes anymore. How about the young S/O's and F/O's waiting for an upgrade. Move on Grand daddy!

Troll Alert
 

Call me Skipper!!!

Perhaps you meant, "Plan on 55. If 65 comes along, then consider it a curse?"

CmS (what a t*sser):

"I can't believe the arrogance of these A scale captains bleating about RA 55. Most of the senior C&T's in HKG have been accepting almost any CoS to stay on just so they can carry on playing sugar daddy to their 30 year old children or not have to stay at home and talk to their wife"

Ummmm sorry....what's your point?:}