KIWIS BEAT CX IN COURT
 

Can anyone confirm that CX has just lost an age discrimination case against the HKAOA in NZ? Or better put, the HKAOA beat CX in court?

Congrats Brownie and Syco!!!

Yes, I have heard from a 100% reliable source that it is true.

Great news indeed.

Very nice to see an independant judgement made using common sense and a legal system as efficient as their rugby team.

It will be interesting to see if the grownups can for once accept defeat with good grace, or whether the toys will be thrown out of the cot, with the inevitable appeal lodged because the result was clearly not backing up their viewpoint of managing retirement age.

Accept defeat? What are you kidding me? When have you ever seen them accept defeat and be graceful losers?

This appeal will go to the highest court in NZ. You can bet on that.

Yes, well done....

Although, I wonder how this affects the viability of the AKL base?


YOINK!

To be honest, not the only airline which takes that course.

Its not about retirement at 55 or 65 instead, its about not retiring at all, as numerous court cases with Air NZ and some of its flight crew have shown. Will be interesting to see what happens when NZ based CX pilots reach 65 and opt to continue flying even with nowhere for them to fly to (apart from domestically in NZ, as Air NZ crew have done, or working in the sim).
Pyrrhic victory if the company closes the NZ base as a result.

The CAD has a max age of 65 to operate HKG registered public transport aeroplanes.
Case closed!

.....I thought that is exactly what this is about??

However, the viability of the AKL base has been under the microscope for many years, I think this will end up being a spectacular own goal.
For those of us in HKG, I can see our next fight will be to preserve the base for 27 of NZL based brethren.........It never ends :ugh:

If you want to see how good the "Management Team" is, just study the history of Bases for a while. It brings a new take to the expression 'due diligence'. Who is called to account when these already existing skeletons leap out and bite Cathay FOPS - or was it all blamed on that dear departed GMA?
Do you have to score highly in the "How many Court cases have you had against your own Employees" category to be voted "Best Airline --- in the World" (spoken in Jeremy Clarksonesque tones).:p;)

So when do the Aussie A-scalers begin proceedings?

I think that they will now go onshore and end up paying full Kiwi tax instead of HKG tax. All of the Oz based guys are on Cos08 so no need for a court case.

I must say that keeping the base going for one flight a day...yep it might not be viable for them. Especially if they have to follow Kiwi labour practices.

Would imagine all the other NZ pilots would be pretty ****ty about this. Their basing has been put at significant risk. And so has the HKAOA paid the legal fees to benefit 2 guys while putting the jobs of 20-odd others at risk?
Some serious questions to be asked there.

Max reheat, drop out of law first year to take up flying? AirNZ lost because under NZ law there was a requirement by the company to assess providing employment in some way shape or form. Age discrimination. And there was a requirement to pay the same pay scale as they had at age 65. CX NZ pilots have just fought to prove they're not under HKG employment law.
I'd say in the future large amounts of money will be spent by the AOA fighting to get NZ based crew doing some form of employment (updating FCOMs, PXing Hkg to work in office etc) on their full pay they were receiving when they were no longer able to fly a 340 to HKG.

Anotherday

Unfortunately the age 65 rule in Hong Kong isn’t governed by Hong Kong labour laws but HKCAD licencing laws of which NZ has no jurisdiction over. I can see why most of the NZ based guys are pissed off with this court case because if the NZ courts continue along their current path I can see this ending very badly as it will become a no win situation for anyone with the company ultimately closing the base.

Another Day

What a pathetic response, why do you take a side swipe, and a cheap one at that, when all I was doing is pointing out the actual policy regarding the CAD.... it seems like you didn't even make it to law school.

The CAD is the CAD and the operation of Cx jets is governed solely by CAD policy.
Age 65 it is, until that policy changes. Now, the two guys may be able to argue a case for working for CX beyond 65 but it won't involve aeroplanes!

There are a few very odd perceptions on this forum as to what has just happened.

Firstly, and simply, NZ pilots pay their union fees like the rest of us and so must be supported when there is a legal case to answer against the company when they act unconscionably.

Secondly, I am certain that there is not a single person commenting here who has put in even 1/10 of the work these guys have for the greater good of the whole CX pilot group than these guys. Many of you simply do not know what you owe them for the massive work they have put in over the past 20 year, and in particular in protecting our FTLs from constant attack.

The base has been viable for many years with the current frequecy so I doubt very much whether the company is brave enough to close the base, even with the upcoming type change.
What's more likely is that they'll try to find a way to push for the Kiwis to pay full NZ tax simply out of spite. After they've run out of appeals of course!

Congrats but...
 

...the AOA always seems to support the minorities in CX - also some based guys appear to royally screw it for the next generation; do you really think with all that crap there will ever be another Canadian/Oz/Kiwi base in CX?

Stuck in HKG forever!

I don't think this will affect basings; at least from a legal standpoint. Many forms of ADL apply to citizens of a country and will kick in if there's any form of operation or trade into the country. Some apply regardless of where the national is employed (although there might be issues of enforceability). There's an easy solution; do the right thing and don't try to divide and trick in order to put strings on the contract or use them as a negotiation tool to play groups off against each other. Or use the privilege of working for more years due to age to force someone onto a new contract (which is legally equivalent of saying you can work 10 more years only if you're a white male). Most of us would cry foul on a first read of a contract that did this ("something's not right here") -- the company just need heed. Most of the AOA's inputs are constructive in nature--often bringing stuff up which does everyone a favor (especially the company) by indicating what the company is doing breaks the law and opens them up to fines and/or litigation or other forms of action. Being an international carrier, we don't operate in a cozy bubble in Hong Kong. Using the "our interpretation" approach to do whatever it wants to carries little weight amongst judges and juries elsewhere.

In any case, how many bases/basing slots have we opened, and how big of a boon have these been ? Has it been 100 slots available or 2 ?

If it was an intent to use US onshoring (or onshoring anywhere else) to try to force a new C scale or hire DEFOs on a lower pay scale, worse COS, etc. rulings like this establish precedent that this won't work. It also makes a strong argument for a unified COS/pay scale and equitable across the board pay increases which was a theme of the last 'negotiation.'