Cathay To Close Bases
 

Under the smoke screen of crew refusing to PX on freighters, Cathay Pacific are pleased to announce the closure of the Manchester and Paris freighter bases from 1 July.

Vancouver will follow once bargaining process is complete.

Crew will revert to HK, in positions applicable to their seniority.

Ex-KA crew cannot transfer back.........:ok:

Surprised you even responded to that one BW!!

I do not think Table For 1 is very far off base. If the company decides to shutter some freighter bases, the freighter PX issue will be used as a company scapegoat. Let's not forget that it is the company who based them there in the first place, and it was the company who did not use the CoS08 opportunity to tidy up the freighter PX mess when they had the chance. This problem is entirely of their own making. Let's not allow the company blame the AOA or pilots refusing to PX on the freighter for any future base closures.

The company has scrambled the eggs for the last 20 years, let them eat them! I'll take mine sunny side up please...

Imagine a scenario no matter how improbable or expensive it may be.

Read your CoS to see if the scenario would be prohibited by your CoS.

If it is not, the company will do it to spite you.

Standing by for Cos12!?

what complete and utter b@@lox.............................almost as good as the one someone came up with that all freighter flying will be transferred to AHK if we refuse to px on the freighter........................good try at a windup, but you need to make it have some semblance of possibility................

Oh, I dunno. Quoting from last weeks 747 newsletter:

"Why is there so much positioning taking place, should be the first question you need to ask and understand. We have too many crew in the wrong places to support the freighter network first up...... The route network has significantly changed with regards to basings and preferred ports..."

and from the GMA 'policy letter' a few days later:

"there may be some other broader implications for Base locations and Base manning levels if Crew Positioning is limted to passenger aircraft only, as this will increase the cost and operational complexity of Crew Positioning, whch may materially impact the viability of some Base locations and Base manning levels."

There is more then a subtle hint coming from the company. And certainly within the " semlance of possibility"....

If you want a war, you'll get a war!

Bases, amongst other things and as part of better lifestyle for crew, were negotiated and came about as a result of giving up 5-4-3 (previous rest recovery days - in case you're new).

There is nothing from stopping the AOA to retaliate and nothing legally witholding the AOA from getting 5-4-3 back.

Bring it on management, let the games begin!

Bases have been in a vulnerable position since quite a while now, that has nothing to do with the freighter px abuse of CX.

There might be in fact a new base available soon : for a new GMA, this time they might consider getting someone with people skills.. :rolleyes:

War Cry
 

AD POSSE AD ESSE
Wish I could share your war cry, but if you read The 49ers : The Real Story. You would realize that when the company declared the mother of all wars, a big percentage of our colleagues ran like little girls.

I'm afraid Beta Light is right. Within a few hours of the Nigel Go Slow it was obvious to the Company that most pilots don't have the balls to do a thing.

But, the company needs the bases to keep crews. Close the bases and the crew shortage will get even worse. Bases save the company money. Their talk of closing them is typical bullying (intimidation in the work place anyone?).

Say NO to freighter PXing.

I would say bases only save money when considering expats, those days are over so they can just let the guys wither on the vine where it suits them ie Aus.

Then they can continue to erode B into C like they did for A to B. They know guys will live and fly for CX in HK without expat terms.

Yes I know we'd all leave......but really where to? And out of spite won't help you.

I would not come to HK without expat conditions. I wouldn't even come with it!

Is closing a base an option?
 

Yes I think it is,

but not because you did not sign your PX waiver.

The company might spin it that way but we all know that they usually have a hidden agenda.

Anyhow just think of following scenario:
You sign the form and think that this action will prevent your base from being closed.
Well what If the base is getting downsized/closed after all and you find yourself now in HK getting positioned all over the place (read westbound and eastbound, north and south).
What will you do then?
Remember you signed the document which said: This is a oneway street.

But hey what do I know.

Now where is Gretchen?

General question
 

Is it the nature of the freighters patterne that causes you to resist paxing on it? I ask because I used to enjoy it! A J class seat, horizontal bunks, easy access to food and drink etc. etc.:confused:

First, it is against the agreement in all of our contracts: It does not matter if you enjoy it or prefer it or like it or hate it. It is not allowed.

If the pilots are willing to give into the company's wish to change this, then there should be a negotiated settlement in which pilots get something for giving something. Simple. It appears that the AOA is willing to give in to satisfy those who want to PX, while allowing those who don't to just say no. However, I don't think that is getting anything in return for helping the company. In other words, some or all of the PX should be 100% credit.

The main problem with PX is the 50% credit rate: This means you work twice as long for the same pay. How hard is that to understand? When you have 5 and 7 sectors of PX at 50% credit, that means you have to work another 5 to 7 sectors just to break even. And that usually takes twice as many work days.

The secondary problem is the abuse of the PX option: Pilots are rostered for very long duties that defy logic and in some cases are simply inhuman. To trap a pilot in a plane for 30 hours is insane, unhealthy and dangerous. The seats are no comfortable and the spacing is cramped on all but the BCFs. There are no lie-flat seats, and the bunks are always taken by the operating crew and the "most tired" guy, or highest-ranking individual who usually displays typical Cathay-style lack of leadership, fairness or equality in sharing the remaining bunk, leaving FO's and SO's to sleep on the dirty floor like animals....you haven't understood the freighter PX issue until you've spent 20 or 30 hours upstairs, while getting 50% credit so they can roster you for even more flights as soon as they get you back. This is the problem with freighter PX'ing.

It has nothing to do with the food and drinks, everyone can watch their laptop or iPad, and we don't have to deal with cabin crew or pax or PA's or anything: But we do get rostered for twice as many flights/days at 50% credit, and it is not healthy or fair to be in an airplane for such long duties with crap seats and no guarantee of a bunk, particularly brutal after an already long duty when everyone else is at the hotel and you've got 10 or 20 hours to go.

Parabellum,
I know the whole freighter thing is a once-in-a-while "fun" thing. Hey, you can go to ANC, have some beers and crab. But now imagine waking in HK around the crack of 10 am but not leaving until 11 pm, and then staying on that same aircraft for 24+ hours - sometimes they even task you to get off midway and sit for 3 or 4 hours in a locker room until the next freighter arrives. You're then dumped off at the final destination between 2 and 4 am. Do this at least once every other pattern. This is normal. Still want in?

Just a thought. Would it make a difference to any negotiations if the seats on the freighter were the new business class type with tv etc and douvets?

Why do people keep thinking that it will be OK if they get nice seats or IFE? Obviously they do not PX on the freighter. I don't either but LISTEN to what people are saying. 24+ hours on the aircraft. PX two sectors then operate the last. It is an abuse of the PX system and against our conditions. Even full credit, nice seats, nice movies to watch does not make 30 hours on an aircraft acceptable.

No, bogie!

It's what Sloppy just said: You just don't get it!! This is a major issue because none of the rules provide any protection from massive abuse on an ongoing basis....except our COS that PREVENTS any and all freigher PX. That is the baseline. From there, if the company gives us something, like 100% credit all the time (to prevent the abuse and inefficient and stupid rostering), THEN we can offer to have SOME guys opt in IF it suits them. Not a blank check to keep doing it! What is so hard to understand? :ugh:

They roster PX to no limit, to make extra 20 guys go to work (get dressed, pack, travel to airport/commute, be at work early to ensure duty is not missed, wait for hours for no credit while trip is delayed, spend 5 or 10 or 20 hours at 50% credit to PX anywhere and everywhere, all to ensure that 1 guy does not get 1 hour of overtime.

There is no NEED for all this PX insanity: It is simply easier and cheaper for the company. Similarly, there is no NEED for any manning level on any base, it is simply cheaper. And now that's it's not easier (on shoring) or so much cheaper, and though it has nothing to do with freighter PX/PT, they are diverting the issue from costs/taxation/labour laws to use the base closing fear and relating it to freighter PX. This is NOT about the IFE!

Another thing to note: While 1000USD for a PT may seem expensive to most people, it is a drop in the bucket for the company. Just look at how many millions they spend on bonuses for management? And how many billions they spend on aircraft and fuel? Seriously, 1000 or 1000000USD for tickets to keep the machine doing is nothing....much like the small pay increases we want.