Question: why are the Canadians and Australians excluded?

If you were CX Flight Crew you'd know the answer to that. :mad:

8driver,

As a NY based pilot, I've got an enormous amount to lose by not signing. There is no doubt flying into ANC and staying on board is easy, but guess what, I'm not signing. This is about solidarity and being part of a push to unite us in the eyes of the company. My GC speaks for me and I've been advised not to sign. If your union MEC said you are going on strike, you go on strike or you scab. Easy choice.


Finally, if you sign every single person will know when you are PXing on the freighter. I know you think it is nice and comfy in the bunk but guess what, that is CA's discretion. I know for a FACT that almost every CA I've flown with and talked to in the last week has adamantly stated that if they have someone on board who signs, NO BUNK.

Best of luck to all. All we are doing is enforcing our contract. The company has every right to PT us all to death. If they choose to fix that, the AOA is ready to discuss.

PP
 

8-Driver,
Your PP is exactly that, "preferred"!
I know that for some people living near your base is a strange concept, but it certainly makes life easier!

8driver, I am HKG based not on the -400/-800, so I don't suffer the freighter PX or Y class PT, but I am not unaware of it, and I think it is a disgusting cop-out by the company. The Y vs F ticket issue is typical HK (and especially CX) mentality to just read the words, without understanding their meaning.

I agree with jacobus that watching paint dry is excruciating, but I believe it is the way ahead here.

The "explanation/way ahead options" attached to the letter from GMA are obviously intended to intimidate people in your demographic to sign. Your 8 years at CX has probably taught you to question why they are trying to push you & your demographic into signing. The usual answer to that question is that it is in their best interest, not yours.

nitpicker, do you really think if I was not CX flight crew I would be even remotely interested in that kind of stuff? Really?? Are you insane ??
Of course I heard of industrial/ union issues, but since I am not from these parts and I actually do have a life..
Get real..

Batman hit the nail on the head. It's about solidarity and the company negotiating with the Association. No more individual contracts/deals.

711, If you are an AOA member may I respectfully direct you to the AOA updates and forums. You will then have a clear insight in to why the company's unilateral action cannot be directed towards the Australian and Canadian bases.
I appreciate you have a life to live but so do the rest of us and we are trying to improve our lives by making a considered decision to stop some of the pxing abuses.

Ok. What is CX going to do if none of us sign?

They have a mandate to reduce costs. Adhoc hotel rooms and PT's are not cheap. Let alone extending your duty to cover the overnights here and there requires more crew to handle the task. What is going to stop them asking you nicely to PX on the freighter? If it suits you.. do it! If it doesn't.. don't.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe in negotiation. But if they want to play hard ball, let them. What have you got to lose?

Negotiate! Unless they want to spend thousands of USD's everyday PT'ing crews around the world to prove a point.

Figured that was coming. My quality of life is going to suffer either way. I understand the point is solidarity and to force a negotiation. I'm just trying to figure out what experience you've had here batman that leads you to believe the we'll either get the solidarity or the negotiation. I hope you're ready to go to the wall for people like me, because I'll be refusing just about every PT in Y class after a transpac sector without a hotel rest first. I'm not gonna beat myself up like that. Don't want to risk a DVT now, do I?

Please don't reference ALPA. I was a member of that sorry organization for 15 years. My blind faith that they had my best interests at heart or knew what they were doing departed long before Duane "Worthless" took the helm. A lot of "gray areas" and promises that didn't pan out. "Just stick together and (fill in the blank).....". Uh-huh.

As you said, good luck to us all. Hopefully we achieve the desired result.

Ever occurred to anybody, that if nobody signs, the Master roster freighter patterns will not work anymore. Sure, they could PT everyone like on the YVR base, but that would increase cost significantly. So the obvious solution is to rework the freighter patterns, pushing for more productive patterns and adjust the staffing on some bases. A couple bases might be reduced, for example LAX has too many 747 FO's, but other base vacancies might open in the basings area or they might even bring preferred ports across country borders back. Maybe even more 777 conversions on bases. Sure it sucks if you are junior, but thats what seniority is for and CX surely abused that principle. Of course YVR 747 is greatly overstaffed, however I can't see them change anything until the collective agreement is signed.
I always wondered why CX never gave 3 months notice to our current RP's and roster us under AFTL's as it seems we can't get to an agreement. That wouldn't work either as suddenly there would be no EXB's, O and A days to roster.
Personally I think not signing is the only option. We actually helping CX to safe money that way, forcing them to redesign the inefficient and unproductive freighter rosters, maybe even fix the present basings situation. Both parties win, CX will safe cost, the pilots have shorter and more productive patterns, less or no PT/PX and no sitting around in ANC or HKG for endless days.
But of course, then there is the option of the "that's how we do business in Hong Kong" way, saving face and showing the strong hand, making rosters worse regardless of cost. However, that doesn't help the bottom line and I am pretty sure that this is CX's priority in todays market - reducing cost.

8driver
 

You are spot on with your DVT comment.

I was wondering if we should "pull" our AME (Dr. you know who I mean) into this saga.
It cannot be healthy if our company rosters us for 22-30 hours duties, which include two or more sectors (operating/positioning).
There should be a limit and as far as I am concerned it should get more limiting the more sectors you are onboard, bit like our FDP limit.

I'mbatman
 

Finally, if you sign every single person will know when you are PXing on the freighter. I know you think it is nice and comfy in the bunk but guess what, that is CA's discretion. I know for a FACT that almost every CA I've flown with and talked to in the last week has adamantly stated that if they have someone on board who signs, NO BUNK.




Hmmmh,

perhaps one should not forget, that someone might agree to a PX request by crew ctl during the roster period.
How are you supposed to know if the bunk applicant has signed the form or just simply agreed to a roster change?
Are you going to give them a lie detector test (meet the parents style)?

Batman, do you really want to go down that road? Intimmidation is not the right way (as our rooky-GMA is about to find out) .

perhaps one should not forget, that someone might agree to a PX request by crew ctl during the roster period. How are you supposed to know if the bunk applicant has signed the form or just simply agreed to a roster change?
Are you going to give them a lie detector test (meet the parents style)?

It's not that hard to look up a crew members published roster to see who is scheduled to px vs. a crew member simply agreeing to it. Also, I would assume most would not straight-up lie if asked if they were rostered or requested to px.

Berry
 

I agree that is an option as you point put.

However I think the whole "Sorry Madam/Sir the bank is not available to you"
card, do you really think we should go down this route?

And if you fly the freighter you know that the roster keeps changing quite a bit, so "your" preflight crew study has a 50:50 chance of being correct at most.
On top of that although the bunk is at the captains discretion but I'd like to see the captain who is going to refuse the bunk a fellow aviator, knowing that he/she has just operated through their night.

Keep in mind that it is an individuals's choice to have their CoS changed.

Everything is about money, that is why people PX on the freighter rather than staying in a hotel, using a KA business seat or going on another airline.

If you do not sign and end up in ANC with the plane you just flew going to Miami do you think they will refuse your request to PX for free or are they going to buy a ticket to get you home?

The cheapest option always wins.

To me, I'mbatman gets it. Being JFK based, I am betting he will be converted to the 777 in the next couple years. When he is, he will be so glad he stood his ground on the freighter PXing. He will not be subject to ridiculous patterns on the 777F. Instead, he will be operating for much more credit whether it is on the passenger or freighter aircraft. Subsequently, he will very likely be at home more, not less.

8driver,

I get what you are writing about, but I think you are being somewhat shortsighted and naive. The only thing that is for sure is that things will change. When they do, I'm sure you will still be able to give away your rights not to PX on the freighter. "One time opportunities" at CX which primarily benefit the company tend to be available after the "deadline" expires (ie CoS08).

I learned the hard way 8driver, told that CoS 08 was a one time offer, never to be repeated. Tripple checked this fact with 3 different senior managers. I reluctantly signed as i need to work a couple of extra years and i am close to the 55 mark.
Now I am out of 10 months bypass pay, business class F.O.C's etc. The "once only" offer ?, you can walk up there tomorrow and sign CoS08.

Me too Beta light...apparently though you have to give your bypass pay back if you do sign over...just what I heard so would appreciate if anyone could shed any light

Almost all of those PX guys using the bunks are not allowed, and I didn't read anything about CA discretion regarding their use: Bunks are restricted to operating crew and other flight crew on PX travel only if they require in flight rest to satisfy the AFTLS. So not all PX crew are allowed, and certainly not those PXing home from ANC. Yeah? GMA forgot to put this detail in his offer.

History repeating itself!
 

It is interesting and somewhat amusing to read the rhetoric over the issue of PXing on the freighter, the threats of intimidation against those who sign the waiver and the bravado of how everyone is going to take on the company.

Gentlemen, there is a reality and I have seen this all before during my many years here at CX. First, there is no requirement to join the HKAOA in Hong Kong so pilots are free to do whatever they wish. CX knows that and acts accordingly, leaving individuals to make their own choices. I recall a freighter Captain almost losing his job because he once intimidated an FO because they differed on views of an issue.

Anonymous forums are a great way to vent one's frustrations and it is amazing how tough one can be when you don't have to give your real name. Many of my colleagues talked a big story, made disparing catcalls behind their colleagues backs and said how they were going to take on the company. Ironically, when the chips were down, it was these same individuals who were the first to turn and run. The result, 49 very capable pilots lost their jobs. And what did we do, we should have downed tools, but we all quickly went back to work. And happy to have our jobs.

For too many years, the HKAOA leveraged gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the bases. Those days are over as the bases now have the strength of collective labour legislation behind them. Pilots on bases have to belong to their union and pay dues. No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand. Do you really think we give a tinker's dam about HKG housing?

Who was the individual who once spoke of those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it?

Now gents, back to your anonymous bravado.

Right. Ok, then, after the HKAOA financed your start up to help develop the Federation, and you say things like this, do you think the HKAOA will give a tinker's dam when CX cease operating CX Canada, just close it down and hand you your 3-months' notices? You don't think that's a real possibility? You think you have any power to stop them from deciding to close or sell or change their company, eliminating all your employment positions?

And then, do you really think you'll then just be allowed to slide right back into HKG without going to the bottom of the list (if at all) after new job openings are advertised to replace you?

Good luck with that.

Iron, if they close a base, the pilots involved can relocate to HK on their seniority level benefits and salary. I really don't understand where you are coming from....

ps. I think Westcoastcaptain's comments are even more offensive and rather crass. We ALL have a vested interest in each others conditions. Anyone who doesn't understand that is doomed to a very miserable and frustrating career.

The same old rhetoric!!!
 

Iron Skillet, thanks for responding so quickly to my post. I see I may have struck a nerve.

CX has always used threats to facilitate gains. How long have you been here? The reality is the last base they will close is the YVR base. They are worried about pilot retention and besides the severance packages would kill them. Why do you think negotiations are going so well in Canada. Much to the chagrin of the HKAOA, I might add. Both employers and employees are required to negotiate in good faith. It is the law. But more importantly the last thing CX wants is to go to arbitration. Just imagine their response when the arbitrator wants to see their books or the discussion of bases comes up. They tried the same threats with the YVR Cabin Crew, the clarion call being "take the cuts or we will close the base. Your costs are too high." There were no cuts and the cabin crew have a new contract.

You say the HKAOA Federation financed the onshoring negotiations. I suggest you have a look at the funds that are diverted to the HKAOA from the Canadian Union. The real issue here is the HKAOA used to leverage gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the based pilots. Those days are over with a completely negotiated contract here in Canada.

So........for all of your bravado, remember it is much easier to get rid of a pilot in HKG than on a base. So for you it is good luck!

Westcoastcapt:

As soon as the collective agreement is signed and in effect, CX can reduce or close the YVR base as they please. You are mistaken that Canadian Labour Law prohibits this. Have seen this happen several times before with actual Canadian airlines, considering CX Canada is only a Canadian entity of a Hong Kong company you are on even weaker ground. You are also incorrect in your assumption that you will receive a severance package. As you are still part of a global seniority list, the basings agreement will govern how a base closure is dealt with. You can choose any vacancies available in your basings area (which leaves only YYZ) based on seniority, choose to return to Hong Kong, choose any available vacancy where you have the right to live and work based on seniority or choose to terminate your employment if the previous options don't appeal to you.

You are also incorrect with your statement "No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand."

You are not required to join a union in Canada, however you are required to pay the union dues, either to the union or another suitable organization of your choosing. Every Canadian airline I have worked for or know off, the collective agreement applies equally to union and non-union employees.

Why is it that always there is a conflict with management we start to have a go at each other? This makes no sense.

....because there's always one sh*t stirrer like Westcoastcapt who chooses to wind everyone up, even though he's wrong on every fact he touches on. Moron

Just to clarify, I didn't say the agreements with the company don't appear to entitle pilots to return to HKG as per their seniority....I meant good luck expecting that it actually happens that way.

Westcastcapt
 

A couple of quick questions,

1. Do you believed forced PXing on the Freighter is contrary to your COS?

2. From the 1st July, could the company roster a YVR pilot to PX on the Freighter without the pilot's consent?

Very sad!
 

For Tornado Ali,

As I reread my posts I don't recall ever using any derogatory terms to describe my colleagues. I may disagree with your posts but I don't need to resort to name calling. Rather sad really, you probably think you are really something. I just stated an account of the history and if you decide to disagree that is your perogative. If you decide to check the facts you may find that I am indeed correct on many of the points.

Your colleague is indeed quite correct that in Canada you do not have to belong to the union, but you are required to pay the dues. It is called the Rand Formula and it is to prevent exactly what occurs here in Hong Kong. Again Tornado may call me a moron but after the 49er debacle many of our colleagues abandoned the HKAOA because they didn't want to pay the increased subs to aid our colleagues who lost their jobs. Again, it was many who talked with great bravado who were the first to abandon ship.

The Crofts case in the UK was the impetus for CX to go onshore as the UK courts found that Mr Crofts was indeed employed in the UK and subject to UK labour law. You may find that we are indeed employed in Canada and subject to Canadian Labour law. Why do you think negotiations have gone so well?

Quite frankly I don't care what many of you decide as I have no intention of going along with it, no matter what the HKAOA decides. I have seen the results of anonymity firsthand and believe me it is full of selfinterest.

Just to wrap up, I once recall a colleague belittling another colleague behind his back. Rather sad really, like an 8 year old schoolboy. I bet him he didn't have the courage to say it to the individual's face. He didn't.
Enough said.

Answers for Liam
 

Liam G,

I don't mind answering your questions in the least. It is rather nice to interact at a mature level.

First, yes it is against my COS to PX me on the freighter. I was once rostered to do so and called CC and said I won't as I flew pax and was quickly taken off and sent on Alaskan Airlines. Much better really.

To answer your second question, I think you have to answer first whether you have signed the waiver. If you have, then you are stuck.

First a little history. Tornado will probably say I'm wrong but again it is the facts. There is very little labour law in Hong kong, but what there is, is very good. CX cannot just change your contract unless it is an outright improvement. Yes, they can force a pay raise on you without your consent, but not a pay cut. No, they cannot force you to take unpaid leave. Our contract is very clear, last in first out. That is why they always bundle something good with something bad, just to get you to sign. So, if you have to sign it, I would suggest it is not to your benefit.

Hope this helps.

For Iron Skillet,

Yes, a number of colleagues have returned to Hong Kong from a base on the same pay and benefits. I may suggest they are even better than what you have.

Suggest you get out more and understand what is going on out there. Don't believe everything you hear.

Westcoastcapt

You do simplify the facts. CX Canada is a unique setup for Canada. Technical you are employed by a Canadian Shell entity of an Hong Kong Airline/Company with the sole purpose of crewing the YVR and YYZ bases and operating Hong Kong registered and owned aircraft under a Hong Kong Operating Certificate. Which means you are employed by a Canadian crewing company which has no assets and the only purpose is to employ pilots. The matters are even more complicated that your future collective agreement will reference a global seniority list and a basings agreement. Anyways, if you really think Canadian Labour law will protect your position on your base you are mistaken. You might want to contact the Canadian ALPA guys who have dealt with such things as base reductions and closures before in Canada. I think though you guys will be safe as CX has a very poor track record with their legal advisors which mostly are in-house or HKG based.

And if you are Canada based what is the whole point of your post. You are excluded from the whole PX proceedings because as you mentioned yourself CX and AOA Canada have to bargain in good faith and as such you can not sign the PX letter as this would be violating the bargaining process. Sure some people here post strong opinions, but my guess is that the majority will not sign as I have observed that a lot of the guys/girls are beyond the point where they can be intimidated. After all the recent disappointments from 2009 until present day in regards of SLS, housing, basings, AFTLs and abuse of freighter PXing to just name a few and constant conflict it seems the pilots good will has vanished.

Westcoast. Tornado obviously got under your skin. Your initial post was deserving of his contempt. Everything you said in that post was incorrect. Don't bother being defensive, you are wrong. Admit it and move on.

Au Contraire!
 

For whatever reason, you may feel that the derogatory comments get under my skin. They don't in the least. Rather, you can tell when someone has little to opine, they just resort to name calling. It's all very sad, especially when it is an anonymous post.

My sole purpose in placing my initial post was to just state the facts. If you want to state I'm wrong, that is your perogative. However, I suspect I have been here much longer than most of you and probably have seen much of this before.

I will be guided accordingly.

Ah, the good ol' "I've been here longer than you" argument....a typical logical fallacy.

As mentioned, there are only 2 bases for CX Canada pilots....you may interpret things your way, but I know which way the company will interpret that, and how much they are always willing to spend in court and for how long they will drag things out to get their way.

Why have the negotiations gone so well? Yup, because they are stuck with it. Then guess what happens as soon as the negotiations are over and the contract is in place? Do you think you work for a different company than everyone else?

So, my prediction is that once the contracts are all in place, and there are no more legally binding limitations on shutting down the company, if that's when they feel like eliminating 100 or so positions, that's how they will do it, a whole "company" at a time (not a base closure), as has been done many times before around the world. Much more savings by eliminating expensive, roster-inflexible FO's and CN's (who may return to HKG with housing one day) rather than cheap SO's with no housing. Just a thought!

You may be blinded by your hopes and dreams, but again....remember who you work for. As usual, nobody seems to notice they always have an ace up their sleeve, just like the PX letter to sign.

Westcoastcapt
 

Sorry to press you on the answer to my second question, however the GMA's letter on Freighter Positioning was vague as to the Australian and Canadian pilots.

He says that all pilots, except those based in OZ and Canada, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter after the 1st July, unless they submit a consent form. He then went on to say that arrangements for the Oz and Canadan based pilots was yet to be determined.

Have you received further and better information, or are you assuming that unless you submit a consent (and you have not been offered that option) that you, or your YVR based colleagues, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter?

Good morning Liam,

Certainly a very good question. I cannot speak for the Aussies as I am not an expert, nor profess to be, an expert on Aussie Labour Law. But I do know a thing or two about Canada.

The reason the recent waiver letter does not apply to Canadian based pilots is due to the fact they are in negotiations. CX is not allowed to facilitate any changes whilst these negotiations are going on. It is against the law.

I doubt there will be anything in our new COS to allow for px'ing n the freighter so I have no concerns. That being said, I suspect CX may eventually try to wrap it in a supposed gain in order to get pilots to agree. Let's remember that their rostering and crew management is very amateurish so flexibilities such as freighter px'ing gives them the latitude they need.

You may recall that CX tried to impose SLS the last time on the YVR cabin crew with no success. In Canada, one must follow a certain protocol when trying to facilitate change. You cannot just impose it. Of course, they huffed and puffed, but in the end just walked away.