Iron Skillet,

Stop it, you're killing me. With predictions like that I look forward to any stock tips you can offer.

No seriously, I admire someone who has an opinion rather than just resorting to name calling. Not worth the effort.

Here let me offer you a little rope and see where it leads. If CX's intention is to close bases, why wait until there is a legitimate COS in place? The move to onshoring in Jan 2010 would have been an opportune time to sever ties with the Canadian bases. The longer this draws out, the more attention that is given the whole base structure. Remember the Croft's case. But perhaps of greater interest, why would CX threaten to close the CC base to secure concessions then sign a new contract for the same?

As you tangle yourself up, let me leave you with something. People continue to come even though the overall package in HKG continues to erode. What if they cut your housing by 50%. What could you or would you do? My guess is you will sign. Remember it costs a lot more to employ a pilot in HKG and on a per hour cost are more expensive.

This will keep you busy for awhile.

Westcoastcapt
 

My questions relate to what will occur on the 1st July and I note your negotiators are not back to the table until July (at the earliest). What may or may not be in your final agreement is fun to speculate, but irrelevant to what may appear on the next YVR (and SYD) based rosters, published on the 15th June.

You stated that it is against your COS to PX on the Freighter. That is the also the position of the Exco and it would appear, by implication, to be the position of the company. Therefore, this becomes a matter of COS enforcement, not change. In this light, why has the company yet to determine a policy for the Canadians and Aussies?

Could it be that the company is waiting to tally up the numbers of pilots that consent to PX on the Freighter, and if numbers are insufficient to publish a roster, particularly the DAC-HAN-HKG trip, they will utilize the YVR and SYD based pilots on such trips. This rather distasteful action will be shrouded in phrases such as "on-shoring" and " maintainance of accepted practice".

So the question to you, or more specifically all of your 747 colleagues, should this occur, what are you going to do? Will you all fly your rosters to "curry favour" with your employers in the hope of rewards at the negotiating table?

Perhaps these are not questions for this forum, but they are certainly questions that need to put to Nick B. well before the 15th June!!

Westcoastcapt
 

I'm no expert but could your previous post also be the reason?

May be it's time for AOACAN to drag out "the negotiations" indefinitely, as CX has done so in HK so many times!

For Liam, there is simply no currying of any favors. In fact, it is rather naive to think otherwise. If you don't wish to px on the freighter, don't sign the waiver.

For SMOC, sorry but the Canadian negotiations will be completed in the next few months. There is no benefit to let them drag on.

Westcoastcapt
 

Kindly afford me the courtesy of reading my posts properly.

This is not about me signing a waiver, this is about you not having a waiver to sign! This is about the scenario where the YVR and SYD based pilots, who have not been given a waiver a sign, are rostered to PX on the freighter post 1st July, particularly on the contentious DAC-HAN-HKG patterns.

This is about the possibility that the YVR and SYD crews are forced into a scenario where they are acting against the interests of the rest of the pilot group. This is about one group of pilots depowering the leverage of another group.

My question still remains unanswered, back to you.....

Communication is the root of the world's problems.
 

At the risk of sounding like a troll, may I ask why almost every single thread ends up in a sh** throwing session where two, three, or four guys fight over what they 'really' meant to say? Seriously, I'm genuinely curious. Why? Is it just poor communication skills? Lack of writing ability? Laziness? Stupidity, perhaps? Whatever the reason, it always seems to be the same stupid people going at it about [who] meant what, or [what] someone really meant to say. Oh please! Why not just get a room together, so you can settle your differences the way normal married couples do. At least that way someone has a real chance of getting satisfaction from all those hours, minutes, an seconds wasted typing, editing, arguing over all the aforementioned crap. :yuk: But by all means, don't let me stop you now, please keep embarrassing yourselves. At the very least, it's FREE entertainment for everyone else at YOUR EXPENSE.

Yes, Liam I did answer your question earlier. Remember that during negotiations CX cannot undermine your contract or facilitate change during negotiations.

I think it has been agreed by all parties, CX included, that having a pilot px on the freighter without their consent contravenes the COS. That is why CX has had the other groups sign a waiver.

Hey, I thought this was a rumour forum, or for the intellectually challenged a forum for anonymous name calling, not a personal help line. But what the heck, I like to help. If you are rostered to px on the freighter advise CC that you do not want to and insist they take you off. If they don't, I suggest you refer the matter to the union.

For FreqFlyer001,

The short answer is because many here have nothing of substance to offer. Because they cannot put two relevant thoughts together in a sentence, calling someone names gives them that sense of bravado. I can assume that at least their wives are proud of them.

Westcoastcapt
 

I am starting to share Freqflyer001 frustrations.

You are very determined to not understand this. I have never sought advice about my position as I am perfectly comfortable about what happens to me on the July roster. I wont be signing the waiver and I won't be PX'ed on the Freighter.

However, what about you (assuming you are YVR based), will you be PX' ing on the Freighter?

Despite what is in your COS, CX has been PX' ing both the SYD and YVR crews during the whole negotiation process, what makes you think that will stop on the 1st July? In the GMA's recent email, where does he say the YVR and SYD crews won't be PX'ed on the Freighter from the 1st July?

Perhaps it is time for another YVR or SYD based pilot to post on this thread and get this debate back on the rails.

I said awhile ago, I don't px on freighters. Was rostered once but had CC change it. Can't make it any clearer than that!

Westcoastcapt
 

You win.... I give up....

I thought I was having a conversation with someone who actually works for CX, not a fantasy airline.

Base closing
 

WestCoastCapt???@@##!!
Moron:mad::yuk:

Liam, I don't see what's unclear about Westcoastcapt's claims. Just like everyone else, it's in our COS not to PX on the freighter. I would think the GMA mentioned "TBD" because the CBA is currently in negotiation, therefore he (nor anyone else) can say for certain what will happen when the CBA is finalized. For the time being, however, PXing on the frieghter is against our COS. You claim some folks are doing it, which I cannot dispute, but AFAIK there is nothing to stop said individuals from refusing to do so. I see no change to the status quo come July 1st (in fact, legally, there CAN'T be a change, given the aforementioned negotiations).

Mooseflyer
 

I don't know what planet you and Westcoastcapt have been living on, however I suspect it is a planet that doesn't involve 747s and AOA membership.

Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing.

1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".

2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.

3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.

4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?

5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.

6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.

Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.

It would be nice if the next post was from an OZ or Canadian based pilot who has an educated view on their position..... Please.....

Good post Liam. All correct as far as I know.

Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing. (LIAM GALLAGHER)

1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".

Wrong: Fly as ordered - yes, PX as ordered - NO (breach of contract, see other discussions);

2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.

Wrong: Proposal was not rejected, it was simply ignored by the company, in the hopes that the "problem" would go away;

3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.
Wrong: 3 D&G's were held, all concluded that freighter PX is in breach of CoS, all 3 pilots continued to be rostered to PX on freighters against their CoS;

4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?
Wrong: No poll has been conducted amongst union members re 1:1 credit, 530 members (sic) protested against breach of contract by signing an en masse objection against freighter PX (the rest just couldn't or wouldn't be bothered);

5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.
Correct: Uncertain, but 3 options remain: ask to operate the sector, ask to PX on a passenger a/c, ask the duty to be changed. File an individual D&G;

6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.
Wrong: OZ and Canada have REAL Labour Laws which makes forcing a change of CoS - illegal

Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.
Correct: although a polite request to change to a PX on a passenger a/c is given wherever it's possible, otherwise, see 5 above.

Liam

I think you will find that the company cannot deal directly with AUS and CAN members, they must deal through the representative body. They will negotiate at the bargaining table. I guess until then it's ops normal. No deadline for these based guys.

What a prize!
 

Let's welcome another winner, ArcticAce. Let me guess, he is an ace at writing skills. Pathetic! How can you spot the village idiot in a conversation?

The North American accent? :cool:

Kitsune,
I like that, a man with a sharp sense of humor. Chaps, that good ole English wit. But let me ask you, which one?

Kitsune's wit is like my Freighter PX credit. 0.5. Or said so he could understand it, Your a half-wit!

Pot meet kettle? How full-witted to position on the freighter (and for half credit)!

Ad posee
 

I do not wish to get into a p!ssing contest with you and rather than dissect your comments line by line I wish to focus on your statement that the D&Gs upheld that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS and how this relates to on-shoring.

Firstly, in his email the GMA makes no admission regarding our COS. I have not read the exact basis of the CP747 D&G decisions. However, I am prepared to accept, for the sake of this debate, that the 747 Fleet Office ruled that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS.

You and many others trumpet the virtue of Canadian and OZ labour laws. To the best of my knowledge, and I am sure that you and many others will shout "wrong" if this is not true, Canadian and OZ pilots have been rostered to PX on the Freighter for the past decade and throughout the entire on-shoring process. They may not have liked it, nor agreed it, but it has happened in clear and willful breach of their COS despite these gilt-edged and First-World labour laws.

Now you and many others blandly say that the COS cannot be changed during on-shoring. That maybe so, however this is not a matter of changing the COS, but upholding and adhering to the COS. Alternatively, are you arguing that because the company abused the COS before on-shoring, they can do so during on-shoring. Is this really what First-World good faith labour bargaining looks like?

Finally, you shouted "wrong" when I said the position of the OZ and Canadian pilots on 1 July is unclear. I paraphrased that straight out of the GMA's email. So please enlighten me, where in GMA's email does he say that the OZ and Canadian crews will not continue to be Freighter PX'ed post 1st July?

PS. As to your final remark about the " polite request". How much did Dicky Hall pay you to write that patronizing nonsense?

Firstly, CC "generously" granting your grovelling request to abide by the terms of your COS probably sees you lose your Credit Hours. Secondly, if you seriously believe this whole issue of poor, inefficient rostering, often resulting in 24+ hours in an aircraft and playing boy scout in the back of a freighter can be resolved by a "polite request", you are delusional. Keep drinking the Koolaid buddy!!

Is the pay on the freighter less than PAX flt? Can anyone confirm the content of this article? Cathay Pacific makes pay raise offer to pilots after ?work to rule? threat: report - Taipei Times

I think maybe airgent just had a small blow to the head

Right, now let me put this crap thread to bed once and for all.

I was talking to two project managers with our Cathay construction company last night who are in charge ( big bosses ) of the new Cargo terminal construction and who WILL be building the new extension to the Headland Hotel. They will start later this year early next and double the size of the hotel with a new wing up to approx 28 stories high.

Why I ask? Well because of the bases and a requirement to add extra rooms.

Cathay ARE NOT CLOSING BASES. Don't fall for stupid rumors and subtle threats.

There was a letter from the GMA? :zzz:

box

Cathy Pacific has pilots based outside China?

Not for much longer:}

Nitpicker that could be for cabin crew though. Their crew bases have worked well and no doubt will be expanding more. Even adding one flight of based cabin crew means a sudden influx of crews staying two nights meaning another 30 rooms per night.

Apology??
 

Baywatcher in response to my opening post in this thread you replied:

Utter bull****!

Sadly my deductions have proved correct, feel free to PM your apology anytime............

Table for 1
 

Here's a good game:-

Post Random, glass half empty, persecution complex driven, obviously feasible (but with no factual basis) conspiracy theories to get the usual suspects to churn out the usual stuff. THEN!! If your No. comes up even vaguely, (not all bases, wrong date) claim PPRUNE Sagehood status ;)

(If a thousand monkeys type on PPRUNE for long enough, complete Works of Shakespeare results theory).

Time for a cold one......

One base is all.

They have already assured the AOA in writing at the EBA neg that they have no intension of closing the Oz base.

Very Reassuring
 

Nit picker, you must find that a great source of comfort to you that it is in writing!

Nah not really....

But, I fail to see why after paying out considerable LSL entitlements under their obligations they would then decide to close the Oz base with the associated huge cost of 200 Pilots returning to HK with full expat benefits........This would be akin to closing the door after the Horse has already bolted....

Crazy, then again no one ever said they act logically. :ouch:

As opposed to the huge cost of returning 41 PAR officers to HK with full benefits? They did that for fun?

The considerable LSL entitlements were required paid -and backpaid- the day they onshored Oz; regardless of their subsequent actions which may (or may not) include the closure of Oz alltoghether.

You can't shut down a base in the middle of negotiations... THAT would be bad faith. Once completed, however, they might wanna ensure that not one single more day of LSL entitlement incurs...

Confirmed, Paris base closing 1 September.

Any word on MAN?

Don't see why MAN or LON would close, from what I believe, the tax authorities and local terms and conditions of the contracts were sorted back in 2008. Perhaps CDG was similar to the AMS case and the local terms and conditions required for a proper on-shored contract would have been too much in favour of the employee, with various sick leave entitlements etc, so I guess Cathay didn't like this with other reasons decided to close the base. Not sure on the complete reasons to close the base yet but it can't be due to a lack of flights because the double daily flight starts up again soon and the Freight only reduces to 3x weekly so it must be to do with on-shoring.

Probably due to there only being 40 Pilots based there, scales of Economy so to speak.