In the latest instalment of The Friday Flyer (8Jul16):

The DFO indicates the company will not immediately talk to the HKAOA, but instead continue to manage the status quo. So much for good faith bargaining and forging ahead with a new positive relationship.

They didn't get what they wanted first time round so throw the toys out of the cot! Surprise, surprise!

Stand by for CX plan A: intimidation and division. Hoo hum!

Pain-

Your 777 roster gives you greater quality of life and more money than your colleagues on the bus and jumbo, yet you advocate we ALL need to be treated well. Certainly you realize the hypocrisy in your position. There is a radical inequity among the fleets that requires change. Seniority may not be the best, but the company lacks the IT to apply any other "fair" system.

How is seniority "not the best"?

What is the better, "fair" alternative?

Seniority means lots of excess training courses triggered when one person retired off the "senior" fleet.

Also how do you decide what is the senior fleet? Pay is the same. Some people may prefer one fleet over another. Not everyone wants the same fleet. Fast forward a few years from now when the 777 has a lot more regional and the Airbus has a lot more longhaul. Which is the senior fleet then?

While CC is marginally effective and TB is where we get our negotiating power. It should come as no surprise the company wants to reduce the threat. The NC made clear the company's requirement was removing the TB. Hence section 7.1.

The company wants an agreement but I do not expect them to be in a hurry. They will devise a program whose objective will be to reduce the effectiveness of the TB. It will be expensive and of limited effectiveness. But over time the impact of our TB will be reduced and accordingly our negotiating position will be reduced.

The important thing is we rejected the flawed TA. What they choose to do now will be more expensive and create more issues than having properly negotiated a descent TA in the first place. We don't need to do anything now. It's all up to them and what they can get from the regulators with respect to bending rules. It's up to the AOA to detail its objection to the CAD that the dispensations are only a result of the company un willing to address issues in their entirety and that their half measures only resulted in approximately half the votes for the TA. If they had have been more encompassing of the issues in the first place. The TA would have been ratified and the need for dispensations and the like would be unnecessary.

Like mentioned in another topic, one of the first things they are doing is taking steps to "re"qualify simulator instructors that had previously been STC's to allow active STC's more time for "training duties".
It will be very interesting to see which of the "ex" STC's will raise their hand and volunteer to accept this deal (i.e. take an STC position away from an active flight crew member). Perhaps someone on this board can come up with a name for a person who would willingly do this?

It has already been done me old fruit. Even the SS is returning to make our lives betterer.