Exactly Nitpicker!

It's kind of like the guy who sits there as PM and just watches while the PF cocks up and then acts as if that doesn't make him look bad too. "Welll I was not the PF for that sector" probably won't go over that well on the third floor as an explanation for inaction. We are a crew in the cockpit, and errors by an individual are crew failures if they result in an undesirable aircraft state. There are exceptions of course.

Similarly, we are a pilot group. The AOA's failures are all of our responsibility. You don't get a pass just because you choose not to be a member. In fact, you are most culpable. Imagine the strength the AOA would have if we had 100% membership.

sorvad, thanks for the support. I was beginning to feel like Ron Paul.

I agree 100% that the failure of the AOA is the failure of the membership.

nitpicker, I don't agree we'd be a lot worse off without it. Without the AOA, individuals would finally see reality and make prescient and immediate decisions. WITH the AOA we all just wait around for something to happen, which it never does.

cxorcist, membership is not the key, it's the willingness of the members to put their jobs on the line by industrial action. 100% membership is completely irrelevant if only 10% of the members are willing to walk the picket line! That's is what you AOA fools do NOT understand! You think it's all about "membership." No, it's about strength! Because so many AOA members are only members out of embarrassment or the need to "fit in," the effectiveness of the AOA suffers. That's why 75% of the members voted for this shi##y pay deal: they were not willing to stake their jobs on getting a better deal. No risk, no gain! When was the last time you saw the AOA direct (or support) its members in an industrial action? 2001? RIGHT! Look what happened and look what the membership did about it! NOTHING!

:ugh:

I look forward to seeing the results of Oval's negotiations as a single pilot, alone and unassisted, with management to improve his lot.

Alternatively I look forward to his joining our pilot's association, running for the GC and using his persuasive internet skills on the 'failed' membership.

Which is it going to be..? Somehow I feel it will be neither. He will just continue bleating on an anonymous internet forum, in self-justification of his non-support of his fellow aviators.

Maybe there are trolls lurking under the bridge. As a long time PPRuNEr, I see these anti-AOA threads pop up fairly regularly 'for no particular reason'. They usually allude to to 'gay OA', 'video club', 'spineless membership/committee' and now it's 'Union Subscription'. Why?

Coincidentally, Flight Ops is under stress. The roster is a shambles, the boys and girls are working their butts off, recruiting policy has failed, and the latest rumour is, 'we are a hundred pilots short'.

Nahh...couldn't be.

Capt Dart, 100 short is not a rumour.

I and 7 others were told by the CP A that we ARE 100 Pilots short.

100/2500 = 4%

They just roster everyone 4 more hours to fix the problem. :ok:

The only way we will get anywhere is by getting rid of seniority.

The only pilots the company needs to attract are SOs. Then they need to retain them long enough so that their seniority prevents them from leaving. Hence the HK Living Allowance and the bond (forgivable loan).

If I could go to another job at or above my current rank then I would have the power to get better conditions.

Mobility of labour is lost with seniority.

When it suits the company we don't have seniority (direct entry FOs & Capts).

The AOA has some excellent people working hard for our good, but they are powerless. Image how much more prepared to flight for better conditions we would be if we didn't fear loosing our jobs at CX, knowing that we could get another job at least as good at another company.

cxlineguy
 

"The only way we will get anywhere is by getting rid of seniority."

and

"The only pilots the company needs to attract are SOs. Then they need to retain them long enough so that their seniority prevents them from leaving."

There seems to be some contradiction here?

However, without seniority you can be sure that the Fleet Manager's drinking pals, golfing pals and the old school tie will get first shot at advancement.

Furthermore, you stand to get knocked further down the promotion list by people joining the company with more experience than you.

Seniority is. I'm afraid, a double edged sword but one side of the blade is slightly sharper than the other.

I wish you well.

E.K. Gann : "Seniority is a system designed to protect the weak and incompetent."

Is that the best you can do? Quote some fella from a different era!!

I'm sure he loved the system where mates and drinking buddies got promoted ahead of others!! Especially since he was one of the mates from the right Squadron. :D

Seniority whether we like it or not is a fair system so we all get our years of dedicated service to our company recognized. If you want a free for all then scrap it and see how much better off you are!!

E.K. Gann : "Seniority is a system designed to protect the weak and incompetent."
 

firewall,

Ernest Gann was WRONG!!

Seniority ensures that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip.

A good Training and objective Checking programme removes the weak and incompetent. Whether you think that CX has both of these is really up to you.

Things have moved on since Ernest Gann's time - fortunately.

Things haven't changed a jot in this profession since Gann's time, read "Fate is the Hunter" (incidentally a must-read for all airline pilots). Gann was knocked back to F/O and "furloughed" numerous times due to seniority.

Seniority protects the airlines more than it protects us, by disallowing mobility. We can't move to BA/LH/QF without starting again, so obviously we don't go anywhere, and so airlines don't have to compete for our talent/experience.

Imagine if Lawyers, Doctors or bankers had to start again as nurse, intern or accountant every time they wanted to change employer. As it is these professions prize experience and ability, allowing top performers to attract real money, and move only when offered a much better deal.

The ideal would be to move to an internationally recognized seniority system where total flight time corrected by factors for type of experience (GA, military, shorthaul, longhaul) would be the basis for hiring and upgrades, not simply time in your present company.

But even as I write this I can hear Lennon singing "you may say I'm a dreamer" in the background... :{

Seniority should not determine:

1. The lawyer in the firm who should get the murder cases
2. The corporal in the army who should be promoted to sergeant
3. The doctor in the hospital who should be the head of surgery
4. The member of parliament who should be a minister
5. The television repairman who should be president of the company
6. The engineer who should approve the design of the bridge
7. The airline pilot with the best flying skills
8. The airline pilot with the best people skills
9. The airline pilot with the best management skills
10. The airline pilot with the best experience
11. The airline pilot most deserving of promotion
12. The airline pilot with the best decision-making skills
13. The airline pilot most pleasant to work with
14. The airline pilot most able to prevent an accident
15. Etc.

Considering all the unique circumstances in the airline pilot's industry (you know them already) that do not apply to most careers of skilled employees, seniority should determine which pilot is next on the list to undergo/attempt the training for promotion from second officer to first officer and from first officer to captain. If you don't agree, you already know that you are free to pursue a career in the contracted pilot industry, or to start over at another company.

If you can't tell the difference between the careers of doctors, lawyers and bankers vs. 2000-10000 airline pilots, all doing the same job, working for one company (like BA or AC or QF or AA) that will not hire foreigners (or non-EU), at least remember that one day you will be replaced by an iCadet.

Who cares what your title is, it's money that matters, I'll take a demotion if it meant a payrise and I wouldn't call it a demotion I'd call it a payrise.

As has been said, lack of movement means lack of pay rises. Face it, you can't leave to join any airline that pays more as you have to go to the lowest entry level pay and no one is going to do that.

Talk about the company moving the goal posts!! If we removed seniority how would a 13 year FO just about to upgrade feel when CX employ an x QF 330 skipper over the top of him!! I'd say he'd be a bit pissed off.......

Because if we removed seniority the only crew getting DE Capt jobs would be Captains already. F/O's would not get a command by moving companies, they have to wait for promotion in their existing job. So in my opinion if all the young F/O's think they are going to be promoted quickly outside a seniority system by swapping Airlines then they are dreaming.......

Like it or love it, it is what it is and it works pretty well for all of us.

Niitpicker and FERetd,
You both have ably demostrated you know nothing of Ernie Gann yet you devoured hook,line, sinker,deckchair and the esky!
Ernie's statement ref seniority worked both ways but more so from top down. For the numbnuts amongst us he refered to the fact that the prize components of the industry (preferential trips/leave) should not necesssarily be awarded to those with the most time in service. In addition, he also stated that commands (not courses in those days, just a few check rides) should be granted on ability but first respecting time in service.

Seniority is the greatest impediment to the "transportability" of our profession (my quote) yet most are either too stupid or self absorbed to realise it.
How's the humble pie kids?

I thought this thread was about union subscription .....anyway talk is cheap and beer costs money
My "union sub "is roughly 150 USD a month is that cheap? I think so but that's what you get when it's run by voluntary members who are?? , I'd be happy to pay more if it was run by non pilots who ACTUALLY were worth the price...
Get rid of committee and bring in some professionals...it's about time isn't it??
:ok:

The Boss of Screw Control told CSD a year ago that they were 200 pilots short! Things are far worse now! I suspect tht the A Fleet Office were throwing that line out there for a few laughs at the Fleet forum.

The Fleet Offices are given their script of things to communicate, much like the Corporate Communications department. I find that my bullsh#t filters get clogged very quickly listening to the 3rd floor.

Even if we were 100 pilots short (iso actually being 250-300 short), I doubt that there is 5% extra productivity available in the Pilot force. EFP figures for the last 6 months show that the workload is "just above target" on the Bus, "below target" on the 74, and spiralling out of control on the 777.

On the 777 many Relief F/O's and S/O's are already limited by 900 flying hours for the year. The Trainers are limited by either 1 in 7, 2 in 14 or GDO requirements. So the only extra productivity on the 777 will come from extra pilots. But how can you train the extra pilots when you can't train trainers to train them.

Further symptoms include the fact that lots of guys have only been awarded 1-3 weeks leave (out of 6) for 2012, with some guys still owed leave for last year.

Management must be praying for a downturn, to get them out of this mess. Again

But, to get back to the thread...

The Union is what you make of it. If you just pay your Union Subscriptions and sit back expecting all your dreams to be fulfilled, then you will end up frustrated. We do not necessarily all need to stand for the GC, but you can still participate by lobbying the GC, emailing and helping out with research or recruitment etc. Usually, I find that the Members who whine and complain the most, have done absolutely F*ck all during their membership. If you want value for your money ...get involved.

I think there is a very close similarity between your relationship with the Union and also your relationship with your Investment/Financial Consultant. If you want to just pay the money, stick your head in the sand and expect everything to take care of itself.. then you are in for a disappointment.

The problem we have, is not the Union. It is the Company, and also to some extent the extra challenges faced by poor labour protection in Hong Kong. It is tempting to just say.. "I am quitting, and I will save $1000 a month". But if we all do that, the Company will take that as the green light for their next onslaught.

Management have just set the new benchmark for our terms and conditions, with the recruitment of the iCadets. We will all be on those terms and conditions 5 years from now, unless we get proactive and get them to back off. Now is the time to get spooled up to fight the looming threat.

(edited for poor speeling. Sorry!)

Exactly nitpicker, and how do you think QF would feel losing their brand new A330 commanders who just left the 747 6 months ago? Who would replace them? Perhaps a CX FO might go and get a direct entry job as an F/O with QF for the chance to live in Australia perhaps QF would up their command pay to stop commanders leaving with a brand new A330 endorsement. Perhaps CX commanders would leave to join QF on their higher pay.

CX wont give a command to just anyone. I'd say a lot more CX Capt's would leave for higher pay or a better lifestyle, if you could join a home carrier on the same or similar pay which CX capt or F/O for that matter would stay in HK?

It will never happen as no airline management would ever ditch seniority as they know it stops people leaving and keeps pay down which is the goal, it's only got to look good at the beginning ie ICadets!

Civility
 

Oh dear,
My first comment on this thread was merely to ask how much the Gen.Sec. was paid - presumably from members' contributions to the AOA.
That resulted in an abusive response from "cumguzzler".

Then I merely disagreed with Ernest K Gann's opinion on seniority.
That resulted in an insulting response from "fire wall".

"cumguzzler" and "fire wall" is it not possible for you to submit your remarks with at least some degree of civility?

If not, then it rather seems that you and CX deserve each other.

But we have drifted, well and truly ,off this topic.

Apologies for any offence caused.

FERetd, there is no insult in the previous piece, implied or intended.
Your charge ref civility is merely to cloud the waters. You asserted than Gann's opinion was wrong. I assert you don't know what you are talking about.
If that doesn't sit well with you then tough luck.