RP07 Revote?
 

Is anyone else perplexed as to why we are voting on this subject again?
We voted no. The GC then decided to try and re-negotiate a better deal with the company which never worked. Surely that means that we accept the original vote and return to the fallback agreement.

How foolish will we look if this gets through the second time when effectively nothing has changed from the first vote?

I get the idea ST is trying very hard to push this thing through.:ugh: Why? We have already spoken!
W2

On the fence on this one. :(

I voted for RP07 and was hoping for a improvement when it failed. Obviously the company thinks supply and demand is on their side. :rolleyes: :ugh:

Me thinks the fallback will win again!

They (CX) gambled and will fail on this one I think.:=

It's simple.

Vote "Against" Revised Company Proposal
Vote "Against" Original RP07


The revised company proposal is so bad it makes RP07 look ok. Why? CX desperately wants RP07. This is their bluffed attempt to get us to revote yes on RP07. They are not even prepared to meet us half way in making a decent offer. The revised company proposal is a complete slap in the face to the Pilot body. It demonstrates their total lack of interest in negotiations.

It is all take take take by the company and no give...

The pendulum is swinging in favour of the pilot body. Crewing levels are short, pilots are leaving yet the Jets are arriving. When you read all the company propoganda in the press it is all about Growth, Expansion, more Jets etc etc.

What we want is simple; Real negotiations dealing with real issues such a Salary and employment conditions. HKG is not going to get any cheaper to live in. Look at all the recent information regarding UPS, Fedex and even Virgin Atlantic payscales.

Do we really think CX is going to just roll over and give us a payrise when we have nothing to bargain with. It is time to stand strong and not give away all our bargaining chips especially when the company is so desperate for RP07.

The revised company proposal is a clear indication of what the company is prepared to give us, NOTHING!

What does CX want? They want RP07.

What do CX pilots want? We want the Fallback Position.

Lets return to the Fallback Position.

I understand the political significance of a 'No to RP07' vote but we will have to live with the result. Will the fallback position (as interpreted by the company in response to our vote) give us a better lifestyle than RP07?

I seem to remember the vote on the crap deal for the 49ers was first voted down as well?
Turns our if you keep putting it forward it may get through! Keep pushing GC.
:D :D

Yes, sometimes you have to fight for what you want. I don't think it will be a bad position. Call me a cinic, but I believe that anything the company does not want implemented must be for a good reason. I believe that the company will not get enough productivity and flexibility with the RP04, so that is why they are trying for this RP07.

I will be voting it down on principle. I'm still pissed that they even thought of proposing a pay cut in this day and age when CX is achieving record profits and numerous awards. :ugh:

As has been said before, lets discuss pay and overall improvement in our package, then I'll discuss better productivity for you so you can keep getting your record profits and big bonuses.

VOTE FALL-BACK ONLY!!!

Did it
 

Online voting opened up about 90 mins ago and I've already said NO to BOTH proposals...

Sqwak7700,
"anything the company does not want implemented must be for a good reason"
I suspect that if they had wanted it implemented they would have offered real improvements in the Mark2 version. As they haven't it seems that CX are happy to go to the fallback and expect to go to FTL's in a few years.
I've never watched lemmings before!!:ugh:

Harbour Dweller, are you even in the union, mate? How does one vote "yes" for the fallback? That's not an option. One can only vote "no" against the RP07 versions if he or she prefers the fall back. If your had access to the motions you'd know this, no?

Forgive me, but I'm somewhat tired of non-union folks spouting off about what should be done whilst providing no tangible support...

If you are in the union, my apologies:ok:

wombatatico,

Your apology is accepted. :ok:

You are quiet correct though in your thoughts. After reading the Unions lastest update today I have edited my post to reflect their voting options.

Harbour Dweller,
I understand your cynicism over this 'revote'. BUT, ST et al are working for you, NOT against you.
Just so its clear...look at AFTLS...that is the fallback position 4 years from now. There are no RPs 4 years from now without an agreement...do you get it!? So NO 5-4-3, no monthly limits other than AFTLS...100hrs in 28 days, 900hrs in a year. Also, just so we are clear...700hrs only applies to a few people. That 700hrs are NOT the credit hrs we are currently used to. 700hrs on the 400/340 is equivalent to about 820+ stick hrs...remember the 2hr loading per ULR.
This issue has been ongoing since 1996...are RPs 'policy' or 'contractual'? RP07, whilst not being the best ever rostering policy, at least enshrines protections contractually. The fallback position is simply us saying that 'rostering practices' are company policy...ie subject to unilateral change by CX.
I have been waiting for the pendulum to swing for 14 years...will it be soon???? And guess what, CX can roster us without RP07...just remember we only have to be rostered for minimum G days and I think very few pilots actually only get the minimum G/O days.
I wish RP07 was better...I am still angry about no payrises. But voting NO on this is 'cutting off my nose to spite my face'. If that is what everyone wants, so be it. But just so we are clear...57% of people that voted wanted RP07 last time. A significant portion of 'no' voters have expressed their reasons for voting No last time...protest/better deal/want fall back. If 34% of voting members(or 51% of the total membership) want the fallback then we will have it and you can be happy being in the MINORITY that dictated policy for the majority. I am voting YES...not because I am impressed with RP07 but because after 14years here I want as much in my contract as I can get. I am happy to accept the outcome whatever it is...please just make sure it is an INFORMED vote, not a protest vote!

Very well put!

NC, you seem pretty well versed on the topic. Good to see an informative post explaining the details.

Are you able to explain, or give a timeline on how we ended up in such a poor negotiating position. Perhaps after the MG case was won might be a good place to start, and work on from there?

Having pretty much rationalised the fact that I do not want the falback, I too have voted FOR the original proposal. It is less than perfect and far from what I consider to be ideal, but it's a lot better than the alternative...I remember those days well - endless reserves, gross intimidation and overtime paying stuffall.

No thanks, I'll take the (original) offer.

I remember those days too but the economics of this time period is different...which makes me even more :mad: that the company would be so reluctant to give.

No...I'm on the fence for now. Maybe in the next 3 weeks I'll cool down and vote for the original but right now I'm too :mad: to vote anything other than no...so I'll defer my vote for a couple more weeks. :\

CPdude
I was the same last time. I was going to vote NO cause I was angry. I ended up voting Yes as I thought fallback hurts me more than it hurts CX!

jtr
I am not sure of the timeline as I wasnt on GC and was just gettting on with life...but...MAG won his case. Then we had RP04 which effectively bypassed the win(my layman's terms!). Apparently we cannot use his case...we have to start a new one. Not sure why but thats what the legal types say.

So if we end up with either version of RP07 we have CONTRACTUAL protection in the future(albeit, not the best RPs ever, but better than what we had from 1994-2001). If both votes fail, then there are 3 ways out of fallback position: 1 we come to another agreement with CX(RP08/09 etc); 2 we take them to court and find out the answer to the 1996 question...are RPs policy or contractual (this court case has to be started from scratch); 3 neither side agrees to anything, the court case is ongoing and in 4 years our RPs become AFTLS only!

It isn't the end of the world if we end up in the fallback, but it does leave us in rostering limbo. I have heard that MAG has said that fallback was just put in there for the sake of having an alternative. It was never seriously contemplated as an option.

Like many here I don't think RP07 is that great...I have had my best and WORST rosters under RP04. But, in my opinion, it is better than the alternative...non contractual RPs.

The important thing is that everyone vote, even if it is to abstain. I do respect that there are different views on this issue. Its good to get all the pros and cons out there so we can all make informed decisions. I personally don't believe it will bother CX if we go to fallback.

Hey Titan 404...whats your view on this...I can't remember if we talked about it when we flew together.

No need to worry, CX know we are fools. Hence the revised agreement.

I can’t see the fallback coming. Me thinks the pilots will be scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback position and vote for the original RP07. Playing into the companies hand yet again. Seems the DFO knows us more than we know ourselves.

I am happy to go back to the fallback , much can happen in 4 years. But then again, it’s the boogyman thing.
If the fallback is in, keep negotiating until something is agreeable to both parties. I guess we will see at the end of the month. Four years is a long time. Much needs to be done to grow and expand the airline in that time.

Just remember, the company is expanding and will be opening new routes and new destinations. The flying you have now at your base/or not will not be the flying you have in the future. There will be more shuttles in both Europe and North America on both the Freighters and the Passenger Fleets. I believe the freighters will be merged in the the next couple of years and volunteering for the Freighter will be gone. Any Freighter Pilots in the know about crewing levels?

London-New York will eventually happen and how will that affect your roster in the coming years on both sides of the Atlantic?

From my experience, think of absolutely the worst roster you can have and apply it to RP07. Will you have the protection? Will you be doing more ULH or more shuttles with less time off. Have a think about it. Do you commute? There will be more reserve on a base to relieve the 744 HKG pilots and other ULH fleets (340/777ER’s).

There will be more regional night flights due to slots restrictions, do you want to be called out off a 12 hour reserve to do a 11 hour duty through the middle of the night? Does RP07 have that protection?

However it goes, we will all have to live with it now and in the future, whatever it brings.

I think the AOA and the Company should sit down and have a more meaningful discussion about the whole COS. We are killing ourselves negotiating bit by bit in the hope of a pay rise.

A payrise is not going to happen. Ask yourself why? Why will the company give you a payrise? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Get real. It is known as the “Black Heart of Asia” for a reason. The DFO already said your yearly increments is your annual pay rise. Get used to it.

Yeh that was pretty much my take on it too. I still can't wrap my head around why we gave away the trump card having won the case. Can anyone explain that one?

MR BLOGGS...

Very well said!!!I'm happy to know that there are at least some other guys out there,who's got the balls...

As for the rest of the comments here: what a bunch a f@#&*@g idiots...

Slapfaan by day...slapfaan by night...

The big selling point for RP07 is that it will end up in the COS. To be honest I'm not sure that that makes very much difference. Please tell me I'm wrong but this is Hong Kong - when the company feels like they need to change your COS they will.

On the other hand this is a time of expansion and dare I say it - the beginning of a pilot shortage. Rostering the Fallback will surely slow the expansion plans which the company obviously doesn't want. NR's has said that they don't mind which RP they have to roster but my guess is that was a pretty bad attempt at a bluff. They want to roster the system that is in line with their plans ie. RP07

We are giving everything away chasing the dangling carrot that is a payrise. That doesn't seem like the way to go.:ugh:

W2

jtr
yeah I don't get it either. I just assume that the GC of the time thought it was the best path to follow! With 20/20 hindsight I think I would rather have taken them to court using MAG's case, than have RP04 and then fallback!!!!

W2
I have spoken to the AOA rostering egg heads. They are of the firm belief that fallback hurts us, not CX. If you can illuminate an alternative argument I would love to hear it.
No its not doom and gloom if we end up on fallback and yes they can do another 'sign or be fired' if it is in our COS. But I would rather have the choice to sign or be fired than have RPs as CX policy, unilaterally changeable by them. So if we go to the fallback we will most likely end up in a situation where we will never need to worry about 'sign or be fired' as they can change RPs right up to AFTLS limits...and even those can be changed with the approval of CAD. I would rather have 3man ULR in my contract than subject to collusion between CX/CAD!

What I would like to see is quantitative information. Not generalisations(of which I know I am guilty;-) of how the company will be unable to man the fleet on fallback. Why? What extra protections do we have in fallback? I know the initial position on May 1st is 6hr reserve(which I like) and 5-4-3. I don't understand the dynamics but I know that we lose 5-4-3 at some stage(within 4 years). Maybe someone in the know can explain it better.

Anyway, lets talk about 6hr reserve and 5-4-3.
There is no doubt that they will need to roster more reserve under fallback. On ULR fleets that is do-able. On the 777??? On the bus with its mixed fleet flying it is also do-able(IMHO). Have you been G/O days off limited in your rostering over the last 2 years?
5-4-3...this means 3 days off before a regional...so if you are bus or 777 from late this year you will get 3days off instead of the table X minimum of 2(or more). I can only go by my rosters and what I hear from others; none of us have been days off limited. I suspect the 777 may be. I think that will alleviate with the 777ERs bringing them more into airbus rostering. On the 400...hmmmm....some ULR patterns are 3 days, most are 4 and a few are longer. Take the average of 4 and you can do 3 1/2 patterns per month under 5-4-3 for about 84ish hrs. So, can't see where it hurts them. People wanting to commute will still waive their 5-4-3 for W patterns. The 700 'productive' hr limit applies to about 20 to 30 people..with the 14% loading for 2man crew on RP07 it equates to about 800 credit hrs anyway(close to what we do now!).

So I really can't see how fallback hurts CX in the short term and I know that they will be better off in the longterm under AFTLS!

The assumption that everything they offer is bad is understandable. But in 1993 they offered CPAPF in lieu of CPALRS (A scale PF) to any A scalers that wanted it. Well, 2 of my very financially savvy friends and I worked out that the new 15.5% scheme was better than the old A scale scheme for about 11-13 years. And in fact it is better for people that have done 17years than staying in CPALRS.

My point is not everything the company offers has to be bad for us, good for them.

I am curious as to what would happen in the fallback...whether a court would find our RPs contractual or CX policy, but I am not prepared to 'volunteer'(by voting RP07 down) for a few years of crappy rostering to find out.

I am still firmly a YES voter....I wait to read/hear information that would make me vote otherwise.

Cathay never really had any competition WITHIN Hong Kong. Now I see the ramp full of OTHER Hong Kong airlines. I see Cathay using that as a leverage to get us to TAKE PAY CUTS!! The dreaded "we need to get competitive" plea.

Enjoy that B scale while you can!

And you thought drinking at the 7/11 in DB was bad!!!

That won't happen! They still have to be competitive in this expanding market.
Korean Air is offering 12K USD (after tax) + annual bonus + per diems + overtime pay past 75hrs. They promise 12 days off consecutively and I understand that the salary may increase as they are not getting the numbers they want.
No, this is not "A" scale or even the higher "B" scale pay yet but the starting point is the same and currently they both go up with annual increments which would make it very foolish for CX to try and cut the "B" scale pay.;)

I believe there are some serious misunderstanding of the fallback mechanism and the impact on the crew. Unfortunately the way the motions are structured a positive vote of 66% is required and last time although a majority voted in favour (56%) the rules meant the motion failed due mainly to 250 members not placing enough importance on the issue to take the time to vote. It is stretching the truth a little when it is claimed we rejected RP04/07last time, however the motion did not pass that is true.

If this happens again the INTERIM FALLBACK becomes RP01….a system imposed by the company and a system they are very content with. This would most likely trigger a court case on rostering and several outcomes are possible. A total victory would probably mean we would get RP94 as the default system, again another company imposed system that the HKAOA has been trying to dismantle since its inception. A loss would mean the company will use the FTL document as its basis for rostering in around 4 years from now.

The so called 700 hour system (RP94) is very agricultural and for example a North American pilot based in JFK or YTO in fact has to add 425 “funny credit” hours to his total as well as 2 hours per ULR sector and that averages about 30 sectors taking his productive hours to 760 and grand total to about 1185 per year, some 112 hours per month average before overtime. A HKG based ULR pilot has 760+93 resulting in around 80 hours per month.

Whilst productive hour overtime is voluntary it is based on an annual and quarterly basis and rarely was achieved, yet some months you could be rostered 110 total hours. The “funny credit hours” is not voluntary and it included DT/BT, simulator, and unlimited days of reserve up to 12 hours at a time. The overtime rate for these funny credit hours is a massive $300 HKD per hour!, for Captains and less for FO and SO’s.

Because the company attempts to avoid overtime the net result is a very uneven distribution of workload between crew with some crew on 30 hours and others on 100 plus per month scheduled. The live rosters were manipulated to keep overtime to a minimum resulting in massive roster disruption.

RP07 certainly has its weak points and my blood boils when is see comments from the company about “so called WORK STACKING”…….with the credit at 2 hours per day for leave it is simple….they work stack in months of leave and it is just simply not fair. Reserve needs work, however some control is possible over your schedule and lifestyle.

Whilst grossly annoyed at the contempt they show for their employees (the mind boggles at how they deal with suppliers, customers, Govt’s and aircraft suppliers), however on balance we must decide if we want the interim fallback and permanent results that a rejection takes us to. We must know exactly what 700 hours means…it certainly does not mean 700 hours…if you know what I mean! The vote is on rostering and not about pay, don’t cut off your nose on this issue.

Rejection pretty well puts rostering in the hands of the company with lifestyle provisions at their discretion, unlimited reserve and O days, no Joker days and the list goes on. if you are not members then become members and have a say, and if you are a member I hope you are not one of the 250 who failed to vote last time and allowed the minority to win by default.

"A HKG based ULR pilot has 760+93 resulting in around 80 hours per month."

Sounds ok to me. Was that meant to be a negative point?

jtr

It was meant to be factual, the average of over 12 months is about 80 however that includes productive plus credit and no factoring. One of the points I was trying to make was that in a single month you could be rostered for up to 88 productive plus no limit on credit hours, ie you could DT for another 30 ( as part of your annual base limit 93-425) have your roster filled with reserve and not get any overtime. In fact you could do that for 2 months in a row then be given a slack third month to avoid quarterly overtime. With annual and quarterly overtime a stand alone single month with high hours generates no reward. In that system leave has zero credit even worse than RP07. In RP 04 73 stick hours flown 2 crew @ 1.14 is around 84 credit hours.

Cyril, Nobody wants the fallback but there is something better out there. There is just no incentive for anyone to go out and find it.

If we vote for RP07, what is the incentive to find something better. I think, with some time with the fallback, there will be incentive to find something better. It would not take much. The company just wants RP07and that will be the end.

It seems we always give in with the slightest amount of pressure. The DFO knows this(but very few pilots). Why are we afraid of the boogyman? Is it because this boogyman can fire you? I don't know.

How does one expect to get a payrise after this? What is CX's incentive to give one? No one leaves, lots of pilots wanting to join, the job gets done, and the pilots that complain about a payrise are the more accommodating to the company? Why would the DFO give a payrise.

Bloggs, you DID receive the newsletter from the AOA detailing the differences (substantial) in pay between a LON based VS crew and CXF crew at all ranks, didn't you? The numbers 43% and 20% spring to mind. I can assure you that if it went to the AOA membership, NR read it too - he knows the shortfall exists.
CX are struggling to find crew on bases, the wash rate on both interviews is staggering, and it's a little-concealed "secret" that many crew on the B74F are leaving or planning to leave...as soon as they get their call from UPS/FEDEX/UA/DL etc...
Our training machine is unable to keep up with aircraft deliveries. Oasis is draining whatever slack was out there and are grabbing many retirees, even calling guys at home - their DFO, AB, is mates with many potential OASIS new joiners. Don't forget that every 55-er that O8 grabs is one less extendee for Cathay.
Korean and Asiana are offering substantially improved contracts with major inducements like $$, days off and crew makeup. Rumour has it that even EK will have a much-improved package in the offering soon, as well as some bases becoming available. I can hear the stampede of hooves already.
I'll wager a significant proportion of my salary that there will be significant improvements on offer from NR soon - for the first time in my 27 year commercial aviation career, the pendulum has finally swung our way.
Just my 02c.

Cpt Underpants is right on the money - a very intelligent assessment IMHO

poor second impression
 

I do wonder what impression we would be giving if we vote yes to the original RP07?

I need to make clear that I voted NO to RP07 first time round - not because I was making a protest vote, but rather because IMHO it was a pretty good first draft that needed a couple of minor 'tweaks' to be given a resounding YES. Moreover, I lobbied almost everyone I flew with before making my decision, and felt that I needed to support their compelling arguments to decline it with my vote.

Imagine my surprise (:hmm: ) when the amended version came back - to be clearly worse than the original offer.

The discussion is now about our voting yes to the original offer. If we do that, you can guarantee that every subsequent offer made by CX is going to as good as it gets. If we don't accept it, they will simply make the offer worse, and then we'll have to accept what they want. I can't see that we have any choice over this one. If we vote YES, having first blown it out of the water we have no credibility left at all, and we are actually making the task of the GC harder. We don't have enough people in the AOA as it is, if we can't even pull together then any vague chance that the company will take us seriously has gone.

Lets be honest too - whatever Korean (or any other airline) are paying, almost no-one is actually going to uproot their family and leave - it's simply not THAT bad. NR knows that as well as we do. I accept that US based guys who are being recalled off furlough are different matter - but still I would bet that the number of people who are actually going to leave will be pretty low.

CU: How many guys are leaving for Korean? Korean will have to pay much more to take away CX pilots. I can't see it happening. The only ones leaving are some US freither guys. Don't think it is a mass exodus. There is always someone to fill the space.

How many crew going to VS? None comes to mind. Until it happens nothing will happen here. It seems we will live in a fire for a long time before we jump.

There can be a washout on interviews, but pilots still show up. They pick from them. Do they lower there standards? All new joiners are a lower standard whatever there position. I know I was until I got up to speed in a new operation.

Oasis is taking some 55ers but are CX counting on the 55ers continuing their contract? I think they consider that they fall off the ladder at 55. I don't know the situation with the 55ers joining Oasis.

EK getting a payrise, I will believe it when I see it. They can promise much but until it happens.................. That may bring it up to just below B Scale. A Scale is still 30% more than B Scale and guys are doing the same job. There are Cat D'ed A scale F/O's making more than a B Scale Captain.

Don't think the pendulum has swung. But that is my 02C worth.

Hey queensland frog
I was pretty certain the new RP07 mk2 would be worse as if the company made it better it would encourage us to knock back every deal, first time, in future.

CX has a very arrogant approach to deals it offers...it is almost always take it or leave it.
Back in 2001, the 'offer' on the table in early July(before the 49ers were created) was almost exactly what was subsequently imposed on us in late July. They offered it, we rejected it, they fired 49 people and then imposed the deal anyway.

So that is the culture we are dealing with. They do not like being dictated to by the proletariat(sp?).

So I agree that almost always the first offer will be the best. I don't know that voting No will change their attitude in future.

And why not? CX have always managed to hire people from countries with poor commercial aviation prospects.

Where are we going to turn to? Korean? Are you kidding me? I'd rather stay in Hong Kong and see my conditions getting chopped until I'll just get sick of it all and quit.

A Payrise? Now that's a whole different laughing matter!

Why would we ever improve our offer? It is going to pass.

You don't vote for this, we will make your life here intolerable and your rosters even more displeasing You think it will hurt us? We have the resources to bring YOU to YOUR knees much quicker. And we will do it. Most know we will and will vote FOR the motion. They know what we are capable of.

You have no where to go. We are still the best paying in the industry and very few are leaving.

Make is easy, just vote FOR. We will get what we want.

We can then move onto pay. We believe in Market Forces. We are the Best in the Region and we will be looking to adjust our pay figures inline with the pay scales in this region.

We have done quite well in the last few years in reducing your package, but is not quite over.

After changing your housing policy in 2001 we get better tax credits with Inland Revenue. More of the pilots are paying our tax bill. All your benefits are now cash allowances and YOU pay more tax and we get the credits. Thank you. You have done well. It’s the silent deal we have with the Inland Revenue Department.

We are working with the CAD to implement new AFTL's which will bring Europe to 3 pilot crew in both directions. This 15 hour duty and new 20 hour duty for ULH will help us immensely with our crewing. Pilots have demonstrated (by the use of discretion) that a 15 hour duty ULH is not fatiguing and we will be asking for that 2 hours of discretion taken out. Again, thank you for your input. With aircraft flying longer routes, we don't want to be limited with an 18 hour duty on crew. It is just not good for business.

We will be asking for an increase in Table A of the AFTL’s. We believe that normal tiredness will not be factor by increasing the Table A figures by 1 hour to start with. This will give us more productivity which will reduce cost, increase profits and more importantly our bonuses.

If any pilots have suggestions on how we can improve our quest for more profits and again more importantly our bonuses, please drop by to one of our many open doors.

The Management.

I was waiting for your return...down in Oz were you?:}

disappointed
 

After reading all of these posts and being a member of pprune and a pilot of CX for some time, I find myself disappointed with some of the answers I read when management puts out proposals. How spineless can some people be. Accepting anything that reduces Cos should be absolutely unacceptable....and the second time around on the same issue.....unbelievable. CX pilots should be fighting for better conditions, not trying to hold onto what they have. Is standing together as ONE such a difficult concept?? Do you think that management can arbitrarily impose conditions on the pilot group if it is not divided? There are 2000+ pilots here and 30+ planes arriving. They need us.....period. There cannot be an airline without us. With all of the growth and other companies hiring, they are not in a position to make any such demands. This is not SARs, or 11 Sept, or the asian economic crisis, or the gulf war. Is it that unclear that the company wants RP07, and if the company wants it, then it CANNOT be good for the pilot group as a whole. CX pilots need to start believing in themselves and acting together as a whole. We need to be ONE. The only facts that are present are, the company is making lots of money, we are growing, china is growing, revenue on the pax and cargo side is usually above target, etc, etc. With this blurb of info, how can anyone even ponder the idea of giving away anything??? Conditions need to improve in times like these. Listening to this management type, whoever he may be, makes my blood boil because he can define a typical CX pilot and believes he can see into their soul. He thinks he owns us!! and so does the actual CX management!!! Here's to putting a stop to this tradition of laying down, and accepting sh#t conditions, and starting to work as a whole. Individually the can fire us, but collectively they are powerless. That should be the spirit. We cannot stand for this type of abuse, and control.

" Listening to this management type, whoever he may be, makes my blood boil because he can define a typical CX pilot and believes he can see into their soul"

Some people will believe what anybody says:ugh:

I think we should vote it down so that there is more flexibility in the future. That way the excellent management team will ensure our future employment as the more flexible we can be the better the company can perform. I have no doubt that it will translate into a payrise for us or even a massive bonus.

Also voting it down will scare them senseless, they will be putty in our hands at the next vote I am sure.

Yes, might be some pain for us but registering our discontent will cause so much grief for the management they will not know whish way to turn and we will then be in control with all the backing of the Hong Kong labour laws!
Vote NO lets go back to RP04, let them know whos boss comrades. :ok:

Work Force :ouch:

Err...................we won't go back to RP04!!!!!