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.