Not about pay?

Absolutely! It smells like the Dragonair offer. All about an increase in productivity with the minimum of a pay increase (reduction in the KA case!)

Swire have realised the pilot shortage is going to bite!

correct, it's about Pay. It's about how little they can give us but keep us interested enough to stay. It is only their first offer. It will get better.

GMA
 

If GMA is a direct beneficiary of this biased offer, can't we pass it to the ICAC?:ok:

Please excuse the emotive rant; I've been up for 32 hours now (4 hours in the bunk doesn't count) and if they ever talk about 3-man ULH I'll cry.

ACMS, as much as I like where your head's at, when I talk to people who have been here longer than I (most people), the result of turning down the first offer will either mean it will be imposed anyway as an improvement to COS or be thrown out completely as we had rejected it. I wish I could believe otherwise.

Although PPrune is sometimes a haven for malcontent, it does offer valuable insight into the wider issues affecting not just one group of aircrew. As an AOA member, I await the outcome of the GC's decision whether or not to support the proposal.

Hong Kong is all about making money. To that end, the local population is encouraged to be part of a compliant, efficient, money-making team. "Same Team, Same Dream" (wasn't that communism?) Enter Jo Pilot, a member of an educated profession taught to question everything and all of a sudden questions like, "Why are we not given even inflationary pay rises when the Company is making record profits?" don't make any sense. Apart from the obvious cynical responses, that about sums it up for me.

Put another way, the Company (I really dislike using generic terms, I'd much rather use individuals or bodies) arguably didn't need to pay us any more in the past and so, as has been the case for the last 14 years, our conditions have eroded, or become more efficient dependant on which office you occupy. There's an air of change at the moment. We are told people are leaving, there will be a pilot shortage and that the Company (there I go again) will need us in the coming years. Is this really the case?

BB

Stick to the facts, Please!
 

One of the main reasons I have always avoided anonymous forums such as Pprune or the AOA, is the continuous mindless ranting and drivel. My sole interest in COS 08 is due to the fact that given the circumstances, this is indeed a dismal proposal.

A few facts;

1. Pilots continue to accept reduced contracts saying that they will do your job for less money. A...B...ASL...DEFO. So if you were the employer, why would you up the ante. The sole reasons that they are extending pilots on A Scale salaries is a) they are already on that salary and
b) many are not accepting the reduced package and are choosing to go elsewhere. They need these pilots to facilitate expansion.
Have a peek inside the Headland. It is full of potential recruits willing to accept an even lesser package, just like many of you did in 93. And no, these pilots are no less capable. Many have come from the same squadrons as many of us. Don't overvalue yourself.

2. CX will only respond if pilots choose to leave. Most companies, airlines included, expect a turnover of staff at least 10%. For a pilot body of 2000 at CX, that is 200 pilots. A trickle of even 25 pilots is not even a concern.
Nick Rhodes doesn't care if you are upset about your contract when you go to work. What matters is that you are going to work. So again, if you are that upset, why are you still here. Or better yet, why did you join in the first place? See my first point.

3. In order for B scale salaries to rise, A scale salaries have to continue to rise. It is simple economics, but given the ranting, many of our colleagues cannot seem to grasp that. Force my salary down and yours is reduced in the long term.

4. CX uses the excuse, changing legislation in many jurisdictions, to justify 55+. Ironically, there is lots of other legislation that is just as important that they choose to ignore. Paternity leave and employment equity are just a couple of examples.

5. This is not about pay but crewing an expanding airline. They need the pax / ASL agreement to solve the freighter issues.

6. Yes, they may impose a pay rise, but they cannot facilitate contract changes without your agreement. And that is what they need!

7. No, don't even consider any kind of job action. I recall quite clearly our last action that caused the dismissal of many capable pilots. Ironically, some of my former air force colleagues were the most vocal and talked a great line. Yet, when the chips were down, they were the first to turn and run. They know who they are. Pilots say many things when they can be anonymous but are rather timid when they have to say their name.

8. Don't make a bold demand unless you are willing to follow through. Imagine sending CX a strongly worded letter, signed by many members, saying that they must up the ante or these pilots will quit. If CX says thank you for you resignation, what do you do now? Ask the AOA for help.

There it is ladies and gentlemen, the facts

To be honest, given some of the mindless drivel, poor spelling and grammar one might think we are overpaying some of our members.

Cheers!

Some very sage advice on this forum. The reality is simply this. Any (ANY) contract offer that has ANY improvement is a gain. From what I have been able to ascertain from others who have been here far longer than I, many times in the past the AOA/membership have rejected contract offers that have included improvements in pay and benefits, only to find that the next offer is far less valuable. This has happened several times over the past 15 years.

Other than the Luddites such as ACMS. most of us should realise that this contract includes some definate improvements. Is it the contract that we want....no, it is not. Is it overall an improvement, one could argue it is. I would rather take what is on the table now, and then build on that in future negotiations. Anything we reject now is something we may not attain for a long time to come. Any improvement to pay raises the base that the NEXT negotiations must improve on. It seems that many of the people on this forum seem stuck on the idea that somehow the A scalers are the real problem in this offer. As a B scaler, I would rather see the upper end of the scale continue to improve...becuase history shows that that is the only guarantee that our own conditions will follow suit. The offered contract has improvements to my pay NOW. As of Jan 08 I will be earning more than I am at the moment. Take what they are offering, and then immediately start agitating for more. Don't turn down more money. The history of this airline shows that it always results in a lesser offer the next time round.

ps. the issue of 65, the A scale and DEFO will happen regardless,...so explain to me why I should turn down a pay rise being offered...?

Yup, looks like the scare tactics worked on you. Do you actually know how many offers have been re-presented with the second being lower than the first, or are you just taking your soon to be extendee Captains word for it?

JTR. Instead of adhominem attacks....why don't you address the 'facts' that I stated. Since 94 CX has, on several occasions, offered lower secondary contract offers after initial rejection of the first offer. That is a fact. What 'strategy' do you happen to have up your sleeve that will result in a 'better' package for us? At my previous airline, we always took any improvement that was on offer....then went on the attack for the next gain. So answer my question: ' why should I reject a pay raise that is on offer'...and what leverage do you suggest we have to force a better deal out of management at this time..?

ps. regarding my 'soon to be extendeed Captain'....what airline in the world pays it's most senior pilots LESS...and what exactly is the benefit to those of us on B scale to see that happen...? Sometimes working for CX is like being Alice in Wonderland!

...further thoughts: we seem to be under the impression that we have CX management on the run. This is a rather comfortable illussion that has frequently led to miscalculations in strategy and negotiation. I suggest that many of you consider that the recent turbulence in the US markets could become a full blown recession. It only takes a few weeks for the world economies to reverse course. If this should happen, any suppossed leverage we may have against the management will vanish. Better to take the pay raise now, then start work on improving the other areas of dispute. In a few weeks, we may all wish for the 11% average they are offering.....

ATY. Instead of adhominem <sic>attacks...why don't you ATFQ?
In a little over a decade I can only think of one "deal" that has been re-presented at a lower level. More than happy to be proved wrong, but lets not run scared hey?
You speak of gains and improvements. From your post I get the feeling you have not been here that long i.e. not in the LHS or close to it. Are you happy to see your time to move seats blow out 3+ years for each step in return for a paltry rise?

- You really are new aren't you?

If age 65 is legally forced in then the company has to continue paying bypass pay to ALL who are entitled INCLUDING those not yet on the payroll. How about looking out for others? Ever wondered what housing benefits S/O's used to get before the current deal? Perhaps those in the fold looked out for those yet to come?

Market forces will likely force them into paying A scale for extendees due to the other choices around.

Bear in mind this is bigger than just your pay packet right now and the alleged -3 to 11% par cut/rise.

At the time losing 5-4-3 was not a big deal to the 777 guys as it meant they could get better rosters, I wonder how they will feel about it when they start doing long-haul?

All I am is asking is don't vote because you are scared of what someone told you the company might do. Vote for your future.

yawn....:zzz: let's make is simple for you. Two questions:

1. Why should I not take the raise on offer?

2. What strategy (details please) do you have to 'force' CX to offer more?


Couldn't care less about your attempt to belittle and demean. Whether I have been here one year or 20, common sense still applies. I have studied the history of this company since the mid 80's, and one thing is exremely apparant, and that is that CX never gives in to pressure or threats. In 99 they were prepared to shut down the airline and use wet lease if need be to break the pilots. They have decided to do what is necessary to operate the airline safely into the next period of it's growth. Many of us here seem be fixated on a resentment of their seniors, rather than a resentment of the real problem, which is a rather mean and arbitrary management.

So, answer the two questions with clear logic and reason. If you can 't do that...well,.....:oh:

ps. a rather pointed example of 'cutting off our own noses to spite our faces' was when Nick was offering A scale Captain for ALL captains...but we decided not to take the package it was contained in. I wonder what all the present B scale captains think of that brilliant strategic decision now. Take what we can...fight for more later. :E (just love these smilies)

Imagine, trading away your only trump cards, a unified pax/freighter deal and 55+, for a measly raise tied to productivity. Pretty cheap!!!!

West coast. Refer to my two questions above....answers on a post card please?

Apple Tree Yard
Because the company has also shown in the past that when it is required it can sweeten a deal. Housing and DEFO pax/freight comes straight to mind.
We don’t have to do anything except vote no and sit on our hands. Even if age discrimination laws are introduced in Hong Kong it will have no effect on our contracted retirement age of 55. The company needs this more than we do and I will bet my left testicle they are prepared to come back with a better offer. This company is training constrained. Even if none of us were to resign before the age of 55 they still couldn’t undertake all the training that is required to drive the expansion.

Westcoatcapt and Apple Tree Yard = Management.

Come back and chat when you have some idea what you are talking about.

404 Titan,

You keep stating "United we stand, divided we fall" we did not do that for the 49'rs so now with all this we are getting what we deserve. Are you still "united" in their legal fight?

My friend, Apple Tree yard
 

The pay raise they are offering pales in comparison to the spectacular profits and rising inflation and much of it is tied to productivity increases. In other words, you are expected to work harder, just to keep up with inflation. Moreover, it doesn't become effective until next year so inflation will wipe out a significant amount of your gains. In other words, you are further behind before you even start.

What to do. Nothing! Just do your job. Remember, the company needs these COS changes to expand. It's rather simple. Really.

Apple Tree Yard

Disagree totally with you when you say always accept any payrise thats offered. Its a little carrot with a huge bloody stick hiding behind it.

Lets see it from the perspective of an SO. He must sign away bypass pay, longer time to FO upgrade/command with age 65/DEFO etc etc for what?
A measly pay rise that will never even come close to compensate for his losses.
On a SO salary of 32 000 a month the payrise equates to one semi good night in Lan Kwai Fong. Any SO would be well advised to not give up all the above mentioned for less than 1000 HK $ a month extra.

The pay talks and COS talk should be split into two separate issues.:*

Ok. Good answers, fairly made. Will give some more consideration and reply later. ATY