PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Fragrant Harbour (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour-19/)
-   -   DPA members to vote on training ban (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/615101-dpa-members-vote-training-ban.html)

TheGreenDragon 6th Nov 2018 06:35

DPA members to vote on training ban
 
So nothingís been learned from the failure of this action at CX?

Voting for this motion will achieve little. The ramifications however are a great threat. Im not a company guy, far from it, but this is really a worthless proposition. D scale is already introduced, and to say the association is safeguarding future members conditions is none sense. Future members wil have already accepted their plight on COS18. No point fighting this one.

The company currently have enough trainers . Anyone wanting to train will not be put off by this action. Some may, but the snakes will now slip through . Trainers are company guys at the end of the day. Or they would not be invited. I get this.

Voting yes will jepodise all fleet movement.
Will screw up the RPA. No lifestyle choices. A return to the dark old days.
Will stop upgrades, wether from SO level or to Captain.
Curtail RRO, cant train replacements right?
We will all work harder, who needs the sectors?

Finally, the incumbent trainers will be so tired and grumpy, the chances of that tick in the box or a reasonable check ride
will diminish .

Vote No. There are better ways, and this is not the fight Iím prepared to back.



unitedabx 6th Nov 2018 06:51


Originally Posted by TheGreenDragon (Post 10302910)
So nothingís been learned from the failure of this action at CX?

Voting for this motion will achieve little. The ramifications however are a great threat. Im not a company guy, far from it, but this is really a worthless proposition. D scale is already introduced, and to say the association is safeguarding future members conditions is none sense. Future members wil have already accepted their plight on COS18. No point fighting this one.

The company currently have enough trainers . Anyone wanting to train will not be put off by this action. Some may, but the snakes will now slip through . Trainers are company guys at the end of the day. Or they would not be invited. I get this.

Voting yes will jepodise all fleet movement.
Will screw up the RPA. No lifestyle choices. A return to the dark old days.
Will stop upgrades, wether from SO level or to Captain.
Curtail RRO, cant train replacements right?
We will all work harder, who needs the sectors?

Finally, the incumbent trainers will be so tired and grumpy, the chances of that tick in the box or a reasonable check ride
will diminish .

Vote No. There are better ways, and this is not the fight Iím prepared to back.



This is exactly the action you should vote to take. In Cx the Tb has been badly managed and regularly breached ( even by GC members ) but at KA you have the chance to learn from the HKAOA attempts and get it right. A TB is a very effective tool to have and use and it is entirely legitimate. Don't throw this opportunity away.

Liam Gallagher 6th Nov 2018 09:52

Greendragon,

You contradict yourself. You say the TB will be ineffective and trainers will breach the ban. You then say the TB will limit the number of pilots in KA and how that will make everyone lives worse. Which way is it?

An airline cannot function without pilots. Unlike other departments, you can't "gap" pilots and that's why the TB has impact. Where the HKAOA went wrong was they failed to convert the pressure from the TB into "gains". That wasn't a fault of the TB, it was a fault within the HKAOA.... Learn from our mistake.

I also disagree, COS18 is a threat to us all. It doesn't just relate to new joiners. It challenges us all. It challenges the future of both the HKAOA and DPA. The HKAOA should follow the DPA's lead and link their TB to COS18.

It's not rocket-surgery, just ask yourself what would the company not want? They want the TB permanently gone and KA introducing a TB is the antithesis of what they want. For that very fact alone, all KA and HKAOA pilots shouid be joining together to support the DPA in this venture..... Like I say.... It's not rocket surgery.....

Unless of course you are on the HKAOA GC who are finding this all too hard. They think we should dump the TB, leaving the DPA high and dry by signing a peace clause meaning we can never oppose COS18, never oppose DEFOs onto the 777, screwing the 777 FOs who are being drafted onto le'bus and 747 FOs who continue to get screwed and we can never oppose the GMA's next dumb idea. The buy-off we receive for this surrender? We get to buy back ARAPA (less a bit), we get to buy back RP07 and get a few bucks in HKPA (which will probably be funded by the non-payment of 13th month).:ugh:

TheGreenDragon 6th Nov 2018 10:12

The AOA are protesting about salaries, 13th month, rosters, etc
The DPA about a future contract, that pilots are free to accept. Or not.

Two completely different issues. And the DPA wanting a training ban isn’t acceptable as the cause isn’t worthy.
Sure, for medical, lack of pay adjustment, rosters and other issues, i’m all in favour of dpa action.
Just not for issues we cannot control. Vote against.

Liam Gallagher 6th Nov 2018 11:02

GreenDragon,

It's true. HKAOA has the TB for RPs and HKPA (local pilots' allowance) whereas the DPA is proposing a TB because of COS18.

However, It is not true the HKAOA rejected the idea of a TB for COS18. Our TB pre-dated COS18. That's the reason we don't have the TB for COS18.... yet....

You are free to hold the view that COS18 is not a worthy objective for a TB. I happen to disagree. I believe your views are very short-sighted. Given current resignation rates and any expansion at KA, you could see a significant percentage of pilots on COS18 in a couple of years. These pilots would have contractually agreed the DPA cannot represent them. More fool them I hear you say. More fool you perhaps, if you believe management won't come after you as well. How will you defend yourself when a large percentage of KA pilots are disenfranchised from the union? I have no vote, so who cares about my opinion,

However, it is not correct to justify your position by holding the HKAOA up as an example. We just haven't had the debate.....yet.....

drfaust 6th Nov 2018 13:07

This debate is being had on the DPA forums as we speak. Stand up and be counted among your peers, even anonymously if you should so desire, but pprune is really not the vehicle for this.

All that said, this debate is not really about COS, RPA, COS18 and all it entails. The real undercurrent of the debate is senior b-scale captains and our fixed leave period scheme. The membership was very clear about its sentiments after the announcement of COS18, the ink was not even dry on our last COS and RPA agreement when that got announced. That sentiment was reflected in the survey.

I would like to think your suggestion of less than fair checkrides because of a difficult working environment is beneath us. But it is up to our trainers to maintain their integrity.

Just for the sake of clarity. For you AOA guys; wish us luck. It may be the last time our votes actually get to count for something.

Oasis 6th Nov 2018 13:36

Good luck, give em hell!

Slasher1 6th Nov 2018 13:59

I'd say the main lesson learnt from the past would be--in order to make this work--you need two things:

1. Cohesion (real cohesion) amongst the membership.

2. The balls for everyone to do it (strangely enough the FAU seems to excel in this department while the pilots often falter).

It's a Sun Tzu thing and a realistic assessment of the membership is necessary (i.e. if ya got a bunch of [email protected] and/or wholly self interested individuals--with a few that'll stand up and many that won't--that's what ya got. It's not going to change and that is what you have to work with. If you have a divided membership (for whatever reason--different contracts, etc) that's what ya got. So the scheme may well not work and it's probably wise to avoid a fight since people will fold. On the other hand, if you have cohesive people of courage and integrity and can stick together it probably will. The key is to fully understand what ya got to work with).

Best of luck whatever y'all decide.

fly1981 6th Nov 2018 14:37

The training ban will do absolutely nothing, in fact, a lot more will be lost than gained.

Farman Biplane 6th Nov 2018 21:47

Why a training ban and not contract compliance?

The DPA contract compliance campaign (very different methodology to the current CX one) was widely seen as successful all those years ago, so why not try that again?

unitedabx 7th Nov 2018 02:18


Originally Posted by Oasis (Post 10303280)
Good luck, give em hell!

Stand firm and good luck guys and gals.

whatsforlunch 7th Nov 2018 03:24

TB is good move
 
I remember when we last exited contract compliance KA management came to the pilots with a ďback on boardĒ policy where they agreed to work with the pilots, and they introduced such things as lifestyle requests and we received a reasonable pay rise.

fast forward to today, we have received a couple of pay rises to keep step with inflation, but zero percent for several years effectively eroding our pay.

in addition the computer rostering makes us more efficient and of course the promise of our computer request system has now been removed.

in short we are doing more for less and now they introduce a new COS?

This is simply like the frog slowly being boiled. We need to stop this erosion in its tracks.

I vote for a TB.

Dan Winterland 7th Nov 2018 04:19


The DPA contract compliance campaign (very different methodology to the current CX one) was widely seen as successful all those years ago, so why not try that again?
The last contract compliance campaign was only successful in that the working conditions at KA became so poor that pilots were leaving in large numbers. The 'back on board policy' was introduced because flights were being cancelled for lack of pilots. It was market forces and not the contract compliance that won.

landrecovery 7th Nov 2018 04:53

Things are not bad enough for most of the pilot body to care.
They have voted the way the company wanted them to vote for the last several years, basically most of the membership are “#all about me”, not willing to lose a bit of money now to secure their future pay and conditions.
CC should have come in years ago when the company stopped negotiating in good faith.
At least stop members working G days

Babbalito 7th Nov 2018 10:39

Jack B'stard
 

Originally Posted by TheGreenDragon (Post 10302910)
So nothingís been learned from the failure of this action at CX?

Voting for this motion will achieve little. The ramifications however are a great threat. Im not a company guy, far from it, but this is really a worthless proposition. D scale is already introduced, and to say the association is safeguarding future members conditions is none sense. Future members wil have already accepted their plight on COS18. No point fighting this one.

The company currently have enough trainers . Anyone wanting to train will not be put off by this action. Some may, but the snakes will now slip through . Trainers are company guys at the end of the day. Or they would not be invited. I get this.

Voting yes will jepodise all fleet movement.
Will screw up the RPA. No lifestyle choices. A return to the dark old days.
Will stop upgrades, wether from SO level or to Captain.
Curtail RRO, cant train replacements right?
We will all work harder, who needs the sectors?

Finally, the incumbent trainers will be so tired and grumpy, the chances of that tick in the box or a reasonable check ride
will diminish .

Vote No. There are better ways, and this is not the fight Iím prepared to back.



Comments like this make me seethe with rage. The selfish inaction of "I'm alright Jack" toss pots such as the OP has brought us to today's situation. They couldn't care less about their future colleagues and have proven so by selling us out by doing NOTHING to resist the SC of 2012. (There were a few that tried ~ thank you). Their actions are analogous to the loggers that chop down the rain forests with no regard for the future. Now there are larger numbers of disaffected SC guys who do not want a repeat of the SC scandal and are willing to do something about it. I applaud their efforts in resisting CoS 18 Virtually all of the trainers are expat B. Many are relatively close to retirement and cashing in. Good luck with that if you're not on their CoS. They want to lord it over the rest of us, pocket their overtime, buy their flash motors and enjoy their palatial homes while everyone else can go get f&&ked. They hope that if we all just keep quiet their will be no threat to RP and other agreements. However, they certainly won't fight for those same agreements to be locked in to stop those on L3 from threatening to remove them every time we need another zero percent shafting.. Why would they want to rock the boat? After all, the Company keeps telling us that "CoS 18 won't affect you". Well, it does affect us because it's grossly unfair just as the SC is grossly unfair.
Now is the time, SC and B scale, to take responsibility and support any initiative that resists the erosion of our profession. Again.

unitedabx 7th Nov 2018 11:13


Originally Posted by Babbalito (Post 10304260)
Comments like this make me seethe with rage. The selfish inaction of "I'm alright Jack" toss pots such as the OP has brought us to today's situation. They couldn't care less about their future colleagues and have proven so by selling us out by doing NOTHING to resist the SC of 2012. (There were a few that tried ~ thank you). Their actions are analogous to the loggers that chop down the rain forests with no regard for the future. Now there are larger numbers of disaffected SC guys who do not want a repeat of the SC scandal and are willing to do something about it. I applaud their efforts in resisting CoS 18 Virtually all of the trainers are expat B. Many are relatively close to retirement and cashing in. Good luck with that if you're not on their CoS. They want to lord it over the rest of us, pocket their overtime, buy their flash motors and enjoy their palatial homes while everyone else can go get f&&ked. They hope that if we all just keep quiet their will be no threat to RP and other agreements. However, they certainly won't fight for those same agreements to be locked in to stop those on L3 from threatening to remove them every time we need another zero percent shafting.. Why would they want to rock the boat? After all, the Company keeps telling us that "CoS 18 won't affect you". Well, it does affect us because it's grossly unfair just as the SC is grossly unfair.
Now is the time, SC and B scale, to take responsibility and support any initiative that resists the erosion of our profession. Again.

Fully behind those comments. Good luck KA guys and gals. Stay strong.

Sqwak7700 7th Nov 2018 12:44

Best of luck brothers and sisters. Good to see fellow aviators fighting for the profession. A TB across the road at KA would really put the screws on them.

Learn from our our mistakes here at the AOA. Your Tb must include incentives to make current trainers resign, and safeguards to guarantee their return to training at the appropriate time as precondition to exit the TB.

I wish you you the best of luck in fighting these idiots.

TurningFinalRWY36 7th Nov 2018 22:55

trainers wont resign, being able to tell people they are a TC is too important to them

unitedabx 8th Nov 2018 10:38


Originally Posted by TurningFinalRWY36 (Post 10304903)
trainers wont resign, being able to tell people they are a TC is too important to them

Then rename them SCABS

GMEDX 9th Nov 2018 02:14


Originally Posted by unitedabx (Post 10305223)
Then rename them SCABS

Yes United, sit back and expect the trainers to carry the burden and then attack them if they chose not to join in the industrial action for which they have been volunteered. Without a united front of CC too this isnít gong to work.
It wonít get voted in anyway as the silent majority donít want to lose the RPA and leave scheme.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:56.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.