TV. You said: Serious load of crap there, "mate". If you think for a moment that Cathay Pacific Airways "is doomed to fail" because this TA didn't get up, then please stop posting.

What really concerns me is the 46% who voted for it. but very pleased that it failed
It's time to put a resolution forward to change the voting requirements from 50+1 to 66% to make passing of contentious resolutions more democratic . It would also get rid of the dangling carrot approach from the company to get resolutions through .

HKPA recipients voted with their feet when they joined CX on their current conditions.

Did you really think they wouldn't try to grab the money on offer? CX know they need more money and will always be dangling a carrot to buy their vote.

This group will require some serious education of long term consequence/action if you are ever going to get them onside to improve overall conditions.

I think you would be surprised just how many HKPA guys did vote no, Ive had captains tell me the reasons why we should take the deal. Plus plenty of people who want to get in to training and have their own agenda for voting yes. I think education needs to be made across the board

Well, I was not expecting that result.
Now let's see how far management throws its toys from the pram. It will get worse before it gets better, the trench war continues...
Now is time for strength and unity.


I really am not too sure about that. Remember that they might have joined on the current terms of their own accord, but we are talking about the generation Y here, the ones who feel screwed up by their Baby boomer elders and are subsequently not in it to get bumped around by anyone. Many view it as cockiness and selfishness, but in this case, it also means they saw the rotten deal exactly for what it was and that they were the ones who stood to lose the most.
I'd be interested in seeing a Yes/No vote tally relative to the age of the voter, because I think many prejudices here might be proven wrong...

TA failed
 

The NO vote would have been more like 90% if the HKPA had not been attached.

Now time to tell the GC what we want to vote on, not AT dictating what shall be in the TA.

We are in the driving seat. Time to rally the troops, and tell the company what it is we want, and then we can all head back to Manila for a new round of talks. Said with tongue in cheek! Highly unlikely, BUT NOW IS OUR TIME.

AT maybe has a week left.

A special thanks to Boss Hogg, couldn't have done it without your threats mate.

Dear RH,

Thank you for your letter earlier in the week. Without that, I feel it would have been a close vote, but in the other direction. So, many congrats for the aid and assistance proffered in our cause. Seriously though, it is well past time for our 'highly educated' first world managers to accept and deal with the fact that you have first world aircrew, with first world competence, who EXPECT first world conditions. It should be a recognition of shame that the only way you and your fellow Swire brethren have ever managed to reduce the airline to it's present stumbling incompetent reality has been through intimidation and outright terrorism (49er's). That is nothing to be proud of. There has been NO evidence of true leadership from your levels within the company. None. Perhaps it's time to realise that the landscape is changing, there IS a pilot shortage developing and that it would be far better to bring us onside as partners with a common goal, instead of treating us like barn yard animals that simply need corralling and beating. If there is not a 180 degree turnabout in how we are treated and respected, there will soon come a time where nothing will save this airline. The TA was rejected for one reason: it did not address a SINGLE issue of concern in any substantive manner. Please reflect on that. If it had actually addressed the issues and concerns that we have rightly raised, and offered fair solutions, you would have had your vote go the way you preferred. Do not now look upon the aircrew as 'adversaries'. I don't think you have seen what a true adversarial relationship looks like. CC is a pretty mild counter to years of abuse from the 9th floor. RH, why not take this opportunity to rise above the usual petty and vindictive actions that usually result when mere labour deigns to push back against the Swire empire. Recognise that it's time to appreciate the sacrifices and efforts of your most highly skilled and motivated staff. WE don't want this situation any more than you do, but we do now insist on a proper, verifiable, equitable and non-maleable contract. Without that, there can be NO peace. Have a good weekend, and hopefully cooler heads prevail in the coming weeks. On a final note, reading between AT's letter Friday, I can say without equivocation: if she tries to use the Trainers/Checkers against the long term interests of the majority of aircrew, most of us will resign immediately.

That would be a great letter.

If it had a signature and name attached to it.

But it doesn't for the same reason the AOA fails to get even twenty volunteers each election.

Very helpful comment Quadspeed. It's a great letter regardless. Why? Because it truthfully describes the facts. And you know damn well why there is no 'signature'. The dissidents during the Soviet era rarely signed their names either.... Prat (there, a signature for you).

Trust
 

Mgmt can show trust themselves by presenting a TA without clause 7.

If they can show good will by not finding interpretations above and beyond what the NC came up with in the TA, they don't need a clause 7 because we won't instigate any TB or CC if we feel that Mgmt is not F&*KING us around.

It's a win win, they get trust, without additional cost. We all get industrial peace with a possibility of CC and TB intact as a check and balance in case they mess around.

There's just been too many broken promises in the past

3 cheers for the HedgeHogg!!

Couldn't have done it without you old chap!

Trafalgar
"I can say without equivocation: if she tries to use the Trainers/Checkers against the long term interests of the majority of aircrew, most of us will resign immediately."

Hahahahahahah

No you wont.

Putting your hand up to train new joiners who are on lower conditions than yourself, and who will eventually replace you (and be a majority vote in the Association), has been against the long term interests of the aircrew since the last 'millennium'.

And how many have resigned since the bluff was called with 'The Letter?'

Clause 7 wouldn't matter if we were happy with the TA. It was crap because the deal in itself was crap and that made us scared of if it would have got voted in and we'd be stuck with it. If the rest improves clause 7 shouldn't be an issue. Now that is a major hurdle to climb. Free reserve is ludicrous. They have free O days so why the free reserve. They want their cake and eat it too while punching me in the face. If they won't scrap it completely then how about reduce the days? Or make all reserve capable of MDC so at least THAT might get you a few extra bucks. Oh and raise the MDC so 18 days equals 84 not 20/21. Add getting paid for any and all G days lost due to disruption and you may have my support! Oh and down route 1 in 7 is crap too.

Playing devils advocate here but I'm sure CX doesn't think you do free reserve......
They do pay basic salary don't they, and then extra HDP for the hours you fly.......
If they had their way we wouldn't get HDP either......

Exactly.

Be careful what you wish for with all this we do "free" reserve.

All duties / flying hours / simulators / reserve etc added up = (for example) 1600 hours, salary divided by 1600 = what you get per hour. We become "hourly" paid instead of salaried and the provident fund would be on the "hourly " pay. Great system for the company as in the downturns "we" would get paid virtually nothing!:ugh:

Well done boys and girls at hello kitty city. Wish some of the pilots at the boathouse had pills that have dropped into the proper position.
As soon as the hear a rumour of a new handbag they will vote in anything the company wants, then are surprised when it's a cheap purse from the ladies market. Or sometimes nothing :{

Landrecovery,

Can you elaborate on that one, at the risk of a bit slow I'm not with you.

Oz2

yup....you lost me too. Australia and I are obviously dimwitted.