HFX, When people have to make up their own mind when to retire they just can't do it. The fear of walking away from the salary, regardless of wealth, is just to hard. So what you end up with is most people staying right to the end or going out medically.

Sad but true.

A survey was done on BA pilots about their intentions wrt retirement age. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the closer to 55 the more likely they were to extend. It seems like people always planned only to work maybe 2 or 3 years more. Its human nature I guess...always just about to leave!

The fairest solution involves fair treatment for those going beyond 55 with fair compensation for those who are bypassed. CX has saved so much in pilot remuneration with B scales and with competitor lagging salaries that it can easily afford to increase its contractual obligation to those bypassed. Still, much depends on the valuation of "lost opportunities".

The solution
Its quite simple...working beyond 55 on current terms and conditions.

Bypass pay to equivalent delayed rank and promotion to bypassed rank. That means that your second year of command bypass should be to CN2, third year to SCN1 etc and then your eventual promotion should be to appropriate rank eg SCN2. Only in this way will there be no financial penalty to CoS99 employees for CX wanting to increase RA.

I think both Raven and Albatross make good points...both A scalers and B scalers have the right to feel aggrieved. However trying to prove to each other who is more 'right' and justified is fruitless....reminds me of a monty python sketch(I think?) "Luxury! When I was a lad I used to have to get up before I went to bed...." My point is, who wins on the most aggrieved game?


I started this thread as I didn't want to see expectations 'managed down' on bypass pay. Its not up to A scalers to pay for bypass pay nor is it fair for B scalers to just 'suck it up'. If (when?) some compromise bypass deal appears, we all get one vote and then the majority of us will determine what is right and fair.

Make it simple Nick !
 

RA 65 win/win :

All on the same scale.
A-Scale incl. P fund.

Might not cost a dime compaired to the cost of over time pay, sickness, people leaving, don't care attitude and sticking to the contract.

A-scale for all July 1st. :O

I agree!! We should not negotiate away bypass pay for what would only be short term financial gain. If a lump sum was to be offered in reparation, it would most likely be for less than the gross amount expected to be paid over a career.

This should be applied to all forms of bypass pay, included the situation where SOs are being promoted out of seniority. There is no fairness in the situation where a less senior officer reaches FO1 first, only due to being allocated the Airbus upon joining, and that he isn't being delayed by waiting for the 777 training system. At least financial equity will help compensate for the loss of career progression.

Standby, a pig just flew by the window. The lack of smog must have brought it out.... No worry, it'll contract lung cancer when the wind swings back, so won't be making any more trips.

Retirement age 65, means different things to every individual pilot in CX.

To most 50+ year old senior Captain's it is a "no brainer" to continue flying beyond 55, even on "B scales", when you compare CX SC17 + benefits to the alternatives. The hassle of adapting to a different employer after decades with CX is also a significant deterrant to going elsewhere.

But to the rest of us, the delayed progression and reduced opportunities will come at different costs.

Many Captains of my generation will not be able to take advantage of anticipated basing vacancies until years later than previously expected. Worst case, the highly desirable bases such as AKL, PER, BNE, YVR, LHR etc will be rarely available for an extra 5-10 years. We will all vote against RA65, since bypass pay doesn't help our position.

Almost all F/O's and S/O's (who joined before 01/01/2008) will see their progression to command delayed. For some senior F/O's the delay will be maybe a year, but for others it could be a significant delay, maybe 5 years or so. These people are the vast majority of the CX pilot numbers, and they need significant compensation to vote away bypass pay for RA65.

It is important for all members to communicate strongly their concerns to the Committe at this time. You need to work out exactly what an increase to retirement age 65 will personally cost you, and do not sell yourselves short.

Why not consider a "softly-softly" increase to retirement age, such as a phased in increase of an extra 1 year service every 2-3 years? For example, RA 56 now, RA 57 in 2011, RA 58 in 2014 etc.

This is a major issue, so get your mates involved as well. Call and email anyone you know on the GC. If your interests are not adequetely protected and compensated, you will really live to regret this.

Why don't we just !!!!! can this whole issue and stick with the current RA55/bypass pay until we have a deal on pay?

:oh::oh::oh::oh::oh:

5-10 years delay on basing opportunity is a big fkn deal!!

I agree with NC's suggestion re the pay but obviously the company won't. However, if we could come to a deal like that but agreed that bypass pay would only be paid to an F/O who's spent 9 years in the company then there could be a possibility of agreement. After all, NR keeps on telling us that there will be little change to command times should the retirement age increase, so it will be a no cost option if he has belief in what he's writing. His missive a week or so ago said " the company is genuinely committed to significant growth over the next 10 years and that a change in retirement age will not unduly slow their career progression" so let him put his money where his mouth is.

bypass pay
 

jonathon, good post!

Parrabellum, I can answer your first question. Unlike SOs, all FOs are entitled or qualified for bypass pay UNLESS they are cat D. I know of some FOs who have been getting bypass for years as they wait for a chance to be reassessed from C/B to A.
As to the second question, I believe if you were meant to get it you keep it till you are no longer qualified. I have heard some 'urban legends' of people having to repay bypass - if this has happened please post here or PM me. In the past CX has been pretty rigorous in paying it to whom it believes is entitled to it.

I think the urgan legends have originated from CX delaying paying bypass pay until it knows who is entitled to it. This would occur if more candidates are on command course than there are extendees. This would happen quite often as most of the extendee entitled FOs on bypass pay could be cat B or C leaving only a few extendees generating bypass pay for current command upgrades.
Choosing a later course over an earlier course CX interprets as the candidate not being entitled to bypass pay between the course dates, even though that is not strictly iaw our CoS. Before you rant and rave about this think about based FOs who stay as FOs for lifestyle. Should they get command bypass pay if they have deliberately knocked back a Hong Kong command course? The CX view is that any voluntary delay to your command removes your eligibility to bypass pay until your actual command course start date!

I believe the same principle is applied for SO to FO upgrades. As far as I am aware, SOs can choose to upgrade on whatever course they want. Where the disputes arises is from the availability of 'long' or 'short' courses. This is not in the principle or intent of bypass pay, IMO, but as long as some SO is getting bypass pay the aircrew body as a whole hasn't suffered pecuniary loss. The wording is vague enough to allow much latitude in how CX interprets the bypass pay provision. With pilots likely to get up to a year or so of FO bypass pay and up to 3-5 years of command bypass pay, for the most affected, it is definitely a section of our CoS that needs to be cleared up and made transparent!

Clear as mud?

I think that extending to 65 from 55 will probably delay most people's captain upgrade to at least 3 to 5 years.

If you consider that the company continues expanding and that some people will not extend/make it to 65, then I think 4 years is a good average.

We then take this 4 years and add it to every FO's seniority who joined before 2008. This means that if you are year 3 SFO, you now jump to year 7, and so on. This takes care of everyone who would be dalayed an upgrade.

If you are an SO, then you assume 3 years on SO scale, then the normal progression to FO scales. So SO year 1 would jump to SFO 1.

Does that make sense? Seems perfectly fair to me. :O

Latest rumours
 

I hope what I have heard is not true, but it seems our AOA leadership is happily supporting a proposal for A scales to take a little cut in salary so that we can all work beyond 55. Its ok though, you will only have to work an extra 3-5 months past 55 to recover the paycuts.

Its not all bad news...there will be some payrise for B scalers and C+Ters - not sure how you can give a C+Ter a paycut and a payrise at the same time?

I guess the zoologist is trying to get as many deals completed as he can before the next GC changeover!

the mind boggles, why the hell do we have to erode our conditions??:ugh: What will it be next year, 2 crew ULR split duty......

NC, is that an immediate paycut or when reaching 55?

Well, I guess all this would have to go to a vote and from where I'm sitting it would struggle to get up.

As far as the upgrade delay goes, I estimate that with RA65 in place, it will add an extra 7 years. Reason being, given the upward trend of oil prices I'm doubtful that CX or any other airline will expand significantly in the foreseeable future.

christn,
not sure. Still at the rumour stage...discussions between AOA and CX on this topic Mon-Wed next week. Probably on earnings after 55 I suspect but that is complete conjecture.

Max86,
you could be surprised. Lets say that CX says you will get 5% backdated to 1/1/08, another 5-10% next Jan, increase in C+ters allowance and then a paycut for A scales after 55. Tell me now how many people would vote against it! Less than 400 A scalers out of 2300 pilots, and of those 400 A scalers many are in C+T and might vote for it as it would lead to a payrise and the ability to work past 55 on B+ scales! I can't see the 1900 B and C scalers being overly concerned with reduced remuneration beyond 55 for A scales.

So yes it will be up to a popular vote but I am sure it will be presented as a "your only chance at a payrise so don't vote no" option - bit like the last 49ers vote. Management only have this GC to negotiate with for another 5 months so I suspect a few more deals will be forthcoming!

NC

The way you been talking lately, it appears you have regrets about how the 49ers were handled by the AOA, is that a correct assumption?

Jonathon68 - you wrote:

How does this help the most affected - ie most junior guys?? All it does is unevenly spread the pain. Which won't do anything to reunite the crew body.

Always appreciate you posts NC, not sure I agree with you on this one. The way I see it is that at most, CX would offer about 10% and based on previous offers even that is probably ambitious. In addition it won't be an immediate offer, it would be staged.

Hardly think this type of money comes anywhere near compensating the junior guys for the hit they will take to their careers and projected earnings.

Some would say that having the option to work until 65 represents some form of financial value. I am of the view that junior guys simply can't plan that far out these days. Telling a guy in his 30's that he may get some financial gain 20+ years down the track is a bit of a joke,

Just keep things the way they are. Let us junior guys take advantage of bypass pay, which in already in our contracts. I have a very bad feeling about the outcome of this.

box

Whatever the AOA presents to you, you can always decline it. Remember everyone is on an individual contract.:ok:

If you are not happy with it, write to the GMA stating you will not accept the new change to your contract.:D

If you have the courage that is. :eek:

Mr Bloogs

Courage?? Why would you think anyone would fear writing a letter to the AOA.

If you think people fear you or anyone else associated the AOA you are sadly mistaken.

For the "my command is now going to be delayed for x years" brigade how many of you joined during the dispute? For those that did join during the dispute then you do not really have anything to complain about as "we told you so".:rolleyes:

Also please tell me where it says in your contract that you will get a command after 7-8 years?

iceman50

It is one thing having your command delayed 1-2 years because of 911 & SARS. It is a completely different matter having your command delayed because the company is wanting to change your contract. If the company wants age 65, there is a provision for that in our contract that allows them to do that right now. It’s called bypass pay. Of course they don’t want that now as it doesn’t suite them, i.e. they want their cake and eat it too.:yuk:

PS: No I didn’t join during the ban.

...many aspects of our contracts have been changed arbitrarily by the company. For the A scalers, it was their expectations of a market leading salary. For B scalers/new joiners, it is now time to command. Either we all fight together....or we will hang together. Not much doubt as to which option will prevail...:(

Read between the lines
 

Apple Tree:

I for one would like to see the contract language that guaranteed you market leading salary ? If it was not written that way exactly in your contract and was only an "expectation" then you cannot really compare it to the retirement age issue. The retirement age was written into our contracts. It affects all manner of the job. No matter what your prediction of how it will increase time to command, it will increase.

Please let me be clear I am on your side when you express concern over your pay not keeping up to the industry. However please do not muddy the issue of retirement by trying to compare apples to oranges.

Also, try and stay positive. If the company does not offer a reasonable deal to accept retirement age 65, then we vote no. If it is changed without agreement then that is something that can easily be defended in court. Also we can wait under the current contract until the courts decide. Even if it takes years !!

Pee Bee:

I sympathise with you that those that joined under the ban, have little or no grounds to object to anything. They should be dealt with as a separate group on their own with the company.

However there are plenty of us that did not join under that ban that are directly affected by this. So for us please distinguish between other politically sensitive groups !!

Ice Man:

This is not about a guarantee of command. However there is legal, ethical and moral grounds to defend the argument that many officers will be disadvantaged by an increase in retirement age. In any situation this will decrease career earnings on a per year percentage (ie you will work longer but the total amount divided by the number of years worked will be LESS per year)

FG

5 Green,

Its the unilateral paycut in 1999 that Apple tree is referring to I think. Isn't your payscale in your COS and has it been increased or reduced since you joined?:}

Apple Tree Yard (how that brings back memories of John Swire welcoming me to the company...).... I suggest that you may be a little misinformed. 20-20 hindsight being a marvelous thing, if you reject age 65 and maintain the age 55 limit, there is still nothing to stop the company offering age 65 on an individual basis, as they did with B scales, C scales, COS 08, ASL etc. etc. etc.
Vote for what you want, but its what THEY want that counts.......:ugh:

Perhaps an influx of over 55 guys from OASIS over the next few weeks might concentrate your mind on the problem.;)

Kitsune
That is true but they have to pay “Bypass Pay”. This is what they are trying to avoid by negotiating with the AOA right now. If we don’t accept the deal they “MUST” under our contract pay “Bypass Pay” when our number comes up.

404 Titan has it exactly correct. If they want to continue hiring DEFO, or extending captains beyond age 55, then so be it. My contract states very clearly that in these instances, I, as well as many others, will receive bypass pay to compensate. Now the union is negotiating to change this? Why? What are we going to gain that will make up the difference for the loss of this section? I highly doubt I, or many others, will make as much as under a new contract as the current B scale. And no, I didn't join under the ban either.

box

So as soon as all these Oasis guys turn up for their 'fast exit' courses (all on 'till 65 according to their letter of offer) everyone will be paid bypass pay as per their contracts? Or as I said before, is this an example of a type of individual 'new' contract to age 65?

Kitsune, lets see how well the truth flies. Having just got off the phone to one of the unfortunate Oasis guys there is no letter-yet. The VERBAL offer is a "rapid exit" command on a hkg base for VETA. Now the last time I looked the normal retirement age for VETA was 55. The same course this guy is going to be offered must be advertised firstly to all employees who are considered "suitable" (open to abuse). This has no bearing on the discussion of the efforts by the company to raise the NORMAL retirement age to 65. 404Titan's view is correct. Until an agreement is reached and voted in by the AOA membership then bypass pay compensation is a legal requirement. Your "individual 'new' contract to age 65" does not exist at this time.

Events will prove you wrong firewall :=

Fire Wall,

I understand the HKG " local terms" freighter contract is on offer only.

This enables working to RA65 (BPP is already in dispute) with a $24,000 "special" allowance (read housing) for Captains only. All commands are open to bid from any CX pilot then any suitable "rapid" commands will be offered.:sad:

I am very disappointed that Oasis has not been rescued. All the guys deserved much better.:(

BB is correct, that's exactly how the truth 'flies'... and which makes my point as advertised...... :ugh:

Anything that helps out the Oasis guys, (especially those who bought their homes in HKG) has got to be good :D:D:D

oasis terms
 

i heard $60,000/month no housing and f/o freighter..hkg based was the grand offer...kick em while they're down!

some will still take it.

BYPASS pay
 

It's simple really- the company access you suitable for command just before your command course( 1 day or 1 weekwhatever ) and thats how they get around paying bypass pay- do you think they will pay a f/o command pay for 2 or 3 years ! You people haven't been here long enough to know how they operate.

Routetuner
The only F/O's not given bypass pay are those who are aSSessed Cat "D" or those who've turned down a command course. It's in the CoS and unlikely to be messed with now as it's also in the UK CoS.
What's also interesting is that there is no mention of freighter commands not triggering bypass! The company may claim that the FACA has been replaced by "company policy" but under UK employment law a company are not allowed to degrade your CoS by introducing a new "policy" that rips you off for several thousand pounds a year without your agreement.

bypass pay..no way!
 

:\that's right boys..employ ALL the oasis guys as FO's and upgrade them after a couple of weeks...did dah!! no bypass pay required...beautiful as usual.