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................
|
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................ "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. |
bogie30
A nice thought of yours, but I think the main reasons we do not want the ftr positioning as it exists right now are:
1) against our CoS 2) unhealthy length of time spent onboard/on ground during a duty period. A better seat will help getting more quality rest or avoid the camping on the floor but I cannot see enough space on the U/D of a production ftr and the BCF's are on their way out. |
quadspeed's post
just reminded me that for european crews a substantial amount of ftr pxing would not be necessary if the preferred port option would be still in place, at least at the beginning and/or end of a duty cycle.
I know that a lot of the MAN based guys had preferred ports in continental europe. Well the company took the option away, didn't they and that was on short notice remember. So if you want less ftr pxing and less PT tkt costs, bring them back on I say. |
Thanks Gents, my experience was absolutely nothing and I do mean nothing like those you describe, we were one sector max for a start. I would not agree to your situation, as described, either!
|
One of the main reasons being cited here against freighter PXing is length of duty day and the freighter seats being too cramped. From my experience in North America, in most cases you stay on the aircraft you came into ANC on and PX to base or preferred port. Yes the duty days are long. Sometimes some pretty ridiculous things have happened such as trying to PX guys to LAX via MIA. And sometimes there is a ground wait to PX on another aircraft. My own personal experience has been that I almost always come into ANC on the same A/C I'm supposed to PX on, and rarely are there so many guys that there isn't a bunk available. And the -8 seats are quite comfortable. But again, this is my experience on one base with a preferred port, and I have been there and watched eight guys come off an A/C from YVR.
But let me ask what people think is going to happen on North American patterns if you don't PX on a freighter? Do you think they will simply stop positioning crews? Roster you to operate every sector putting you into overtime? I think a whole bunch of people will get off in ANC, have a nice trip through security in the passenger terminal, a nice sit in a gate area, and then a wonderful Y class seat to your base or preferred port. And if that PT is seven hours a Y class seat is all you get since the US Airlines call those seats in their forward cabins "first class" seats. It doesn't matter that they aren't even as comfortable or spacious as a freighter J class seat, Cathay equates them to a Cathay first class seat and we seem content to allow that. Of course it doesn't matter to anyone based in HKG who doesn't have to deal with such nonsense as the (imaginary) US first class seat. I'm going to guess a minimum of fours hours average ground time in ANC while you wait for a PT flight depending on time of day. Maybe a hub stop and a connecting flight as well on the way home. Compared to one hour to clear customs and stay on the freighter home. So if the company continues to position crews you are almost GUARANTEED a much longer duty day than a freighter PX. A nice middle seat in the back and if you're lucky a bag of peanuts. Make sure your suitcase fits in an overhead or you'll be waiting at a baggage carousel at home, and your flight bag under your seat in front of you. But there's a lot of leg room in Y class anyway, so that's no bother. Now I could be wrong. Maybe the company won't want to pay PT costs and they'll schedule more efficiently or have some sort of a bid to realign the bases. Maybe we'll work every sector for full pay. I don't see them caving and offering full pay in return for freighter PX. I think a lot of people will get a Y class PT shoved up their a** and told "this is what you wanted." Nobody really seems to be addressing that scenario but people will certainly be thinking about it sitting in the back of that Delta 767 on the way to Atlanta (stop in Minnie anyone?) wishing they had a bunk to lay down in. Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances. Its a gamble. |
-8 driver...
Sounds like you have decided to sign. |
8driver,
on your way to anc you will most likely get a friendly acars message asking if you would like to remain on the freighter to your base. After July cc new task will be to exhaust all efforts to save money on PT travel. So, rest assured, you'll get to lie down in that bunk rather than eat your peanuts in a middle seat. In the end, we will have a choice which is the way it should be. |
Just say CANNOT. Too tired
|
8Driver, at least there will be somebody (you) to do the Dhaka-Hanoi-Hong Kong flight!
|
Oval Three Holer,
I never defended that pattern, its probably the most abusive one out there. The crews should be positioning on Dragon Air. And if I was based in HKG there is no way I would sign that letter. If I was on any other fleet I wouldn't sign it. It wouldn't make sense. My point is that not every pattern is abusive and in a large amount of cases not PXing on the freighter in North America would be a significant hardship. For a YVR guy it would be shorter to PT home from ANC than to go through LA first on the freighter. It wouldn't be shorter for a Miami guy, or an LA guy, or a New York guy. It would be longer. On my last pattern it took me 19 hours to get from HKG to Miami. I was one hour on the ground in ANC and slept six hours to MIA in a bunk, after having had a meal. There is no faster, easier on the body, way home. It doesn't exist. So there is no one size fits all solution. What bothers me here is that I see people talking as though this is going to bring a large unilateral improvement in our conditions. Only the most abusive cases are cited. For many it will be an improvement, and for some it won't. Sure you can say CANNOT to the PT, I want a room in ANC. And you'll lose a day and that same lousy PT ticket will be waiting for you the next day. I'd like one person to tell me how it would be healthier for somebody east coast based to sit four hours in a terminal and six + in US airline cattle class after coming from HKG to ANC? And for those of us who would be served the sh** sandwich I don't see any promises to deal with that long haul Y class nonsense we have in North America. Its not even on the radar. Once Janet Robertson was gone PT travel went to crap and its stayed that way. Barry McCockner- I'll only get that ACARS if I'm on the MIA flight out of HKG. There will no longer be any impetus to roster me that way. Any flight to ANC and a PT ticket to LAX, my base. Wrong coast. Maybe they'll be less PXing overall. That's wonderful but to keep me under guarantee, hmmmm...finish in LAX or MIA? I'd love to see the abusive patterns stopped. Anyone who will see an improvement in their conditions should most definitely not sign. There is a small minority of us in North America on the 747 though that benefit from the freighter PX. And I don't know if I'm ready for my roster to go to crap mid-summer simply to show solidarity while I wait for some undefined good to come from it. More credit hours, less PXing, a Miami base? Or a bunch of PT tickets from LA to ANC and back? You tell me, because my crystal ball is broken. Like I said, for me its rolling the dice. |
8driver,
I think you're missing point... You and those like you want to give something away for nothing. At least give the AOA a chance to negotiate something better... DO NOT give your consent!!! Otherwise, you are giving away one of the few pieces of leverage we have for negotiations. Is this a hard concept??? And yes, you will be doing the DAC-HAN patterns in HKG with correlating rest on both sides (read extra EXBs), making your time away from home even greater... So I'm not sure you're actually helping yourself. |
8driver,
cxorist is right. If you sign this you are making a lifetime decision. Take a step back and look at the big picture. The company wants to get something for nothing. If they don't get anyone to sign there will be negotiations to follow after May 28 has come and gone. Wouldn't it be nice to get 100% credit for all those px flights? |
Cxorcist,
The point is that its an individual choice and no one should be castigated for signing. Most people are giving away something for nothing, but not everyone. What am I giving away? My right to a Y class seat for up to eight hours with no food instead of a freighter bunk? The right to end up 2,000 miles from home in my base instead of my preferred port because PT tickets to there are cheaper? My right to sit in a terminal for up to six hours while waiting for that Y class seat? My right to a longer duty day by PTing in North America? I am part of a very small minority and I know it. I think there is a complete lack of understanding about some of the issues in North America. I also think there is a complete disregard for those issues, because it is only the 747 fleet, and only in North America. I've seen massive abuses of PXing on Captain rosters, a lot of it as a result of the YVR "megabase." I've also seen a lot of F/O's routinely go home by the fastest possible means on the freighter. Crews in HKG have recourse to the Cathay passenger network and J class seats for PX. I don't know how it is in Europe with PXing, but if the sectors are long you will probably have recourse to Cathay or another airline with J class. In North America the carriers choose to designate the front cabin as "first." The seats are in most cases of a lower standard than a freighter J class seat. But the reservations system says "F" so the company says "Oh, no, that's a first class seat, no J, you're stuck in Y for as long as we like." BUT, sometimes when that exact same aircraft goes between the US and Canada that cabin becomes "business class." Same airplane, same seats, and now we can sit there. OR, I love this one. Sometimes a US carrier uses a transatlantic airplane to go cross country. These have a J class akin to ours. Nicer than their normal first class, recline almost fully, etc. Its a nicer seat and we are entitled to those because its coded "J", but not the inferior domestic "F". I can't make this stuff up, but its what we deal with. Its the definition of stupid. A couple of photographs and we should be able to straighten this right out. But nobody wants to because it only happens to a small minority on one fleet, in one base area. Is the AOA negotiating that? How about when the company redefined the six hours wait time on the ground to not include post flight, preflight, and transport? So that its almost eight hours now? Does that happen a lot in HKG? AOA working on that? I'm venting here Cxorcist, because this is a very bad deal for me. Last full year of commuting to LA was 8,000 USD. Pass riding no longer reliable with US domestic loads. Miami is a great deal but we just can't seem to open it as a base. So if you were faced with well over three hours of PT in a Y class seat, and finishing in your base rather than your preferred port, and a duty day being extended by a terminal wait, what would you do? Think about it. Operate to ANC, six hours in a terminal, and Y class for 4,000 miles. Really? I've just been trying to show that it isn't the same for everyone. And when when was the last time the company responded the way the AOA expected and conceded something? |
8Driver,
I was just stating an example and I take all your points. It is true that for some pilots, signing the consent form (which is VERY open-ended and vague, as the company likes it) could maintain the most reasonable way to get to/from home. However, as others have said, this is one chance (and we don't get many) to get something from the company. If no one signs the company will HAVE to negotiate something better. However, I don't think we'll all be sticking together on this one, just like all the rest. This is just another way for the company to divide and conquer. If you are content with your individual contract having a vague blanket permission to the company go ahead and sign. I think each person will decide on his or her own whether to sign. Solidarity has never existed at this company for as long as I have been here and I don't think now is the time it will start to exist. Do what's best for you. Don't fool yourself and don't expect others not to sign just to make a point. |
I think it won't matter if some guys like 8 driver sign it, no hard feelings from my side.
I reckon 95% will not sign, and that is enough to motivate the company to offer something substantial in order to make a deal. |
Long Term Picture???
And if I was based in HKG there is no way I would sign that letter. The point is that you might be HK based one day. I agree with santorum's assumption that you're probably a 20 minuter, which is fine, and I seriously hope that all of you in that basket can make your way into a legacy job - it's a win-win for us, where you get a more preferred job, and a crew shortage pressures CX to improve the remaining pilots' lot. However, just consider the fact that 1 day, if the FedEx/UPS/etc path doesn't work out for you, you might end up in HK. Do as you consider best for yourself, but by taking a little short term pain, we can hopefully make some long term gain. |
8 driver,
did you ever consider that not signing this letter might forced the company to open a MIA base. We need pilots to operate in and out of there. Can't get them there via px, pt is expensive and inefficient, so lets base a few of them there. The rumor that cx wants a MIA base has been around for a long time. I believe that the gma's letter said something about re-evaluating bases. Any thoughts to that outcome? |
Berry, you're thought is interesting.
This letter from the GMA proves that the AOA is only a convenience for the company and a pipe dream for the pilots. The company "negotiates" with the AOA when it wants the pilots to think that they have some power as a group and when it does not WANT to hear from each individual pilot. The company goes directly to the pilots (as it has just done) when it wants to modify each pilot's individual contract (which it is, except in Canada and Australia.) If each pilot, who is on an individual contract, were to go to the company and say, "I want this, I want that," which would most likely be done through a grievance, the company says, "Go to the AOA and have it bring the needs and wants of all the pilots to us. We don't have time to listen to each of you individually." However, when the company wants something it goes directly to each and every pilot. This is how it is and this is how it will be as long as those pilots are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement such as in Canada and Australia. Regardless of the existence of the AOA, this issue will certainly come down to the wishes of each individual pilot. The company has no obligation in law to treat the pilots as a group, therefore, group mentality is not pertinent. |
Wow. The ignorance and assumptions are astonishing.
8driver=20 minuter Gone once FedEx/UPS/Insert Legacy Carrier Here starts hiring Go back to Mesa/Colgan/insert ****ty feeder here Or you could come to Hong Kong, but I am guessing that is not an option What I'm really surprised at is how many people just jumped onboard with Santorum's silly assumptions about me. One of the reasons I care about the implications of not signing this letter is because I'm not going anywhere. cxorist is right. If you sign this you are making a lifetime decision. 8 driver, did you ever consider that not signing this letter might forced the company to open a MIA base. We need pilots to operate in and out of there. Can't get them there via px, pt is expensive and inefficient, so lets base a few of them there. The rumor that cx wants a MIA base has been around for a long time. I believe that the gma's letter said something about re-evaluating bases. Any thoughts to that outcome? Do as you consider best for yourself, but by taking a little short term pain, we can hopefully make some long term gain. |
Just saw Oval3Holer's last post which speaks to a point I'm trying to make. Even if there were a group mentality for those under HKAOA the US pilots interests are lost there. We haven't been on-shored and we are still dealing with HKG labour law. We don't have a collective bargaining agreement, and we don't have anyone to negotiate our interests as it is in Australia and Canada. I feel like our interests are secondary to the majority in HKG.
|
And beautifully put if I may so, and therein the nub of the matter: your meat is another man's poison. If you take the HKG case the issue is the amount of px'ing prior to operating. I do no less than 3 HKG-DAC-HAN etc this month which are 14 hour days and my credit hours for all that effort are 43 ! So this needs to be resolved. Px'ing is a necessary evil to an extent on the freighter operation. Sadly, as in so many other things, the company just take the piss, and will not stop until threatened with legal action. Wasn't required when I first joined as we were a small operation in a Crown Colony and things were settled over a quiet beer by the AOA President in the police mess over the road. We have outgrown that; sadly, however,the CX mindset has not
I have every sympathy with your situation howeverr a negotiated decent settlement is the only way to go... And watching paint dry is excruciating !! The company will attempt the usual divide and conquer tactics as usual; save our Canuck and Oz colleague who cannot have anything forced on them. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.