JFK 777 Base on new FTLS

[Not Hiding]

I was told that the GMA said JFK would be opened as a 777 base if the AOA agrees to an appropriate new FTLS.

[M89speedtouch]

I heard the Perth Base is safe so long as they agree to one pilot.

[whackthemole]

London remains as long as we wear our hats.
Frankfurt avoids the axe if we don't get sick.
Manchester stays open if we never apply for maternity leave.

Toronto remains if we all PX on the Dakota.
Vancouver won't close if AOAC agrees to CXexpress LCC flying YVR-HKG with contract crews.

Los Angeles has a bright future if we all sign CoS12
San Francisco remains open if we accept DEC without bypass pay.
Miami will open if we raise the EFP threshold to 96hours
Atlanta won't close if we raise retirement to 85.
Chicago has a bright future if we waive our cosmic radiation limits.

Sydney has a fighting chance if we allow floating bases.
Melbourne's future is safe if we don't mind loading ELIs and Linseed Oil on the same pallet.
Brisbane stays intact if we forgive the Star Chamber



Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai won't open if we give up housing, schooling, and the AOA.

[Frogman1484]

That is so funny...thanks for the laugh.:D

[WeakForce]

Thank you Whackthemole.

[I'mbatman]

Can't wait 'til it is filled with Canadians who have the 'right' to work in the US.

[dogleg]

No need for the "right" to work. CX is a foreign airline with foreign registered aircraft aircraft with pilots with foreign licenses overseen by a foreign regulator. If you look carefully on the CX tail, you won't see any stars and stripes.

For simplicity, the pilots will based in HKG. They will do some regional flying but will also have a "preferred rostering destination." Days off will be given down route. i.e. in JFK. Local national pilots will go home and foreign pilots will travel to their home country on their days off thereby keeping immigration happy since they won't be overstaying their crew visas (183 days).

[airplaneridesrfun]

...but the PABA will still say that officers taking a based position must have the legal right to work in the country they are bidding for and also pay tax in that country - just like the PABA always has. Hmmm.... wonder why the company is having issues around the world? Some are brought on by FOP Admin by not verifying people's legitimate 'right' to live and work in a country they are based. How hard can that be??

[cxorcist]

Actually dogleg, they do need the right to work from a US base. Why is it, do you think, that the company went through all the trouble of getting visas for the Canadians working from US bases? It wasn't just an paper exercise for practice. It is required by US law and, subsequently, company policy. So if we are going to have newly based pilots being company sponsored for US visas, they better plan on finding ways for this to happen in all the other basing areas as well. That Ozzie base sure looks good from where I'm sitting...

PS - I'm not antipodian.

[Not Hiding]

CX helped the Canadians get visas so CX would not have any possibility of having to help those Canadians with a future version of the present "double taxation" issue.

CX can say, "You have the right to live and work in the USA, so, go there and you won't be liable for Canadian tax, nor will we."

It's like chess. We pilots look at the present move.

CX looks (suprisingly enough) at least one or two moves ahead.

No, I'm not referring to the basing office. I'm referring to those who have run this colonial enterprise since the 1700's.

[Threethirty]

Why on earth would the AoA even put this forward to vote on? Sorry I forgot they are the other face of management.

[joejet]

Where did that go?

How is it that we start American Bashing? If Cathay offers work visas to anyone who wants them, are you going to say NO to an LAX base living in San Diego?

So, JFK 777 base?

Refoucus.

[GTC58]

The new FTLs have nothing to do with what the company proposes for a potential 777 JFK base. CX wants EFP calculated and averaged over a 2 months period, eg 1 month 96 hours, the next month 72 hours equals a monthly average of 84 hours over a 2 month period and no EFP paid.

[water check]

Averaging of hours over a two month period. That will be a NO on the ballot!!

ps. Go Israel.

[Mr. Bloggs]

What are the new FTL's? Is it 92 hours before overtime or overtime over a 2 month period?

Three trips a month will make out to be about 96 hours.

I am sure those desperate for a base will sign just about anything to get out.

Let's make some sense of this.:ok:

[GTC58]

Mr. Bloggs

There are no new FTL's at the moment plus FTL's have nothing to do with EFP. FTL's are based on CAD371. The hours are just an example to explain how 2 months averaging would work. Cx would only consider a JFK base if they can roster 5 trips over a 2 month period without accruing EFP. That's one of the idea's presently floating around on the 3rd floor. As I said before this has nothing to do with FTL's.

[Mr. Bloggs]

Understood.:ok:

Just seeing what was floating around.:ok:

Seems like they are trying to renegotiate the rostering practices then?

[Oval3Holer]

Yes, Mr. Bloggs, those desperate for a base will sign anything to get out.

Unfortunately, those who are content with the polluted cesspool which is Hong Kong and for whom selling their childrens' health to the devil for a few bucks of housing allowance will certainly vote No to any modification of our contract which will benefit those who are on or who wish to take a base.

[SweepTheLeg]

If they want efficiency and safety then all they have to do is roster JFK based crews to do a SIN or CGK through the night flight on their layover in HKG. Efficient and right on everyone's body clock. You'd be approaching 80 hours every month by doing two trips a month from JFK.

The company has already stated they are increasing frequencies, including a 2nd through the night flight out of SIN and a SGN redeye.

[burgerbun]

I find your lack of faith disturbing... :P

[Oval3Holer]

Joejet said, If Cathay offers work visas to anyone who wants them, are you going to say NO to an LAX base living in San Diego?


Joe, CATHAY can not offer visas to anyone! Only the country of employment (in this case, the USA) can offer visas. I don't think the USA will make the same mistake again.

[joejet]

Your correct in that Cathay does not actually offer the visa. They can sponsor someone to the INS for a work visa. The job description can be written so that only a current Cathay pilot meets their criteria. This happens all the time in every type of industry.

We will all find out next Friday!

[cxorcist]

Whatever is learned next Friday, I'm sure it will create more questions than offer answers. No doubt, there will be bad news for some and good news for few or perhaps none.

[GTC58]

heard a rumour this week that all US based, Canadian FO US visa applications got rejected only Captains got approved.

[Iron Skillet]

Heard 15+ resignations from PAR base closure? Anyone know anyone who did this, or is it total BS?

What is the motivation for CX to "open" a JFK base?

[cxorcist]

Uhhhh, 4 pax flights (3 direct) and one freighter daily to JFK.

IS - It's not rocket science, must be a bit embarrassing.

Gotta run, I have to study up on my theory of scientific theory...

Two too many theories in there for me, but I'm thinking of entrusting my soul to it. Seems pretty rational and logical to me. Don't you guys think?

[Captain Dart]

If some sort of an announcement is coming out on a Friday, it is probably bad news.

A common industrial and legal tactic; for example, if you are going to be fired or sued, Friday afternoon is often the time.

[Loopdeloop]

Or Friday evening after Handbrake House is closed for the weekend if you're really going to shaft a bunch of pilots...

[quadspeed]

If some sort of an announcement is coming out on a Friday, it is probably bad news

I challenge you, or anybody else, to present just one piece of good news that has been presented since 1993.

Seriously.

[Steve the Pirate]

Skillet et al, it's back to contentious topics using the thread drift method it would appear. The change of name in the now deleted thread that you suggested should not have been to change "dogma" to "dogmatism" but "shortest" to "shortest-lived"!

Happy drifting.

STP

[jriv]

Does Cathay also help other nationals get US visas, or just Canadians. If not, why?

[Cpt. Underpants]

No, CX does not "help" any nationals "get" US Visas.

CX is in the airline business, not in the immigration business.

The Canadian/US visa issue was an expeditious means of continuing to do business without a major upset. There were a load of Canadians living in the US under the terms of a previous basings agreement (not well thought through) and all that CX has done is to facilitate US work visas for them whilst in the employ of CX or a subsidiary.

[jriv]

Just seems a little strange that only Canadians would be afforded the privilege of working in the US. Why not Mexicans? Or Germans?

[joejet]

The Canadians that do not have work visa but have a base in the US cannot be in country for more than 180 days per year...so they can not practically live in the US. if you have a work visa, then you can take up full time residency. There should not be any restriction for other nationals working for CX. As for the Mexicans, they don't need visa, they just cross the border. Germans...well, I don't want to start a thread drift.

[Cpt. Underpants]

OK, here's the truth:

Canadians are just BETTER. Better at everything. That's why.

[badairsucker]

Capt. U.

You are correct sir, every time I fly with a Canadian they tell me they are the best so it must be true!!!!!:ok:

[cxorcist]

Must be tough on the ego to be overshadowed all the time by Big Brother next door...

I agree that the biggest pain in the arses at CX are Canadian and that some tend to overestimate their flying abilities by a good margin. Not that any of this is unique to Canucks, it has just been my experience here.

Where's WCC? I'm sure he has an opinion on this.

[Cumguzzler]

Just heard an interesting rumor that some US guys are quite pissed off about the visas, and that they have made FOIA request to be able to review the apps. Supposedly there were some shady reasons given in the apps to justify those type of visas.
Can you guys imagine what would happend to the affected guys if they have not been 100% truthful in their applications:=:=:=

[joejet]

If anyone did lie on their visa application, which I doubt, they would end up in Federal Prison followed by immediate deportation. No visa required to be an inmate in the US Federal Prison system.

Why would anyone try to have a fellow employee sent to prison over that?

[freightdog188]

once they're in a US prison they wont be employees for long ... that precedent has been set, hasn't it?

[joejet]

Once their time has been serves they have complete the requisite training for a management position. :ok:

[GTC58]

Cumguzzler

The US visa's are company sponsored L1A visa's. No individual pilot applied for a visa. All visa's where collectively applied for by the company and not as an individual. Actually, Canadian citizens with a Canadian residence do not need a US visa if employed by a foreign company, operating foreign registered aircraft, starting and ending their pairings in the US as long as they do not live in the US and commute from Canada. However, CX made it company policy to require a US visa because of US tax liability concerns. As you might have heard all Canadians with a US base file and pay income tax in Hong Kong, Canada and the US due to how CX approached the whole issue. All Americans with a Canadian base do not need a Canadian visa at the present time as there seem no tax implications for CX.

[jriv]

So do Mexicans also not need a US visa to be based in the US? How about Germans, or Yemenis?

[Cpt. Underpants]

Don't see a problem with Germans or Yemenis, but those darn Azerbaijanis and Armenians are a pain in the butt...

[Cumguzzler]

The US visa's are company sponsored L1A visa's. No individual pilot applied for a visa. All visa's where collectively applied for by the company and not as an individual. Well, now we know it was done right:D:D:D

[mngmt mole]

Uh huh. And the FOIA enquiry will see if CX was 'honest' in their representations to the US Immigration authorities. What do you want to bet on that outcome??

[Oval3Holer]

One of those who has been issued a visa told me that some of the information on the application was most certainly misleading and untrue.

[Pogie]

Could anyone confirm if any FOs had their visas approved?

[poydras]

Do you have problems with DEGO' s AKA euro trash?

[Oval3Holer]

joejet, Friday has come and gone and you (as well as CX) are eerily quiet...

[joejet]

Next Friday...

Results were released from the 8th Floor to the 7th, it takes time to go all the way to the basement where we are.

Uhmmm, don't forget this is PPRune, not the BBC.

[cxorcist]

If it were BBC, it would be even less accurate with more bias...

Heard the new FTLs are a "rolling" 84 hours. If you fly 74 one month, they get you for 94 the next without EFP, etc.

I say no way to this ever! I don't care what base is at stake.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

the 84 hours is in your COS.....nothing to do with FTL's,

[Progress Wanchai]

EFP has NEVER been part of the FTL's.

You'd be a little more credible if only you made sense cxorcist.

If the accuracy of your posts is anything to go by the BBC must be some sort of information guru.

[cxorcist]

Sorry guys. What I meant to say (had a couple rough long haul days) was that I heard a rumour the company was going to pursue, for the "new JFK base" or otherwise, a "rolling" credit hour concept as previously laid out. I realize that this has nothing to do with FTLs, but it could become part of an RP negotiation or "new contract" or "sign or be fired," etc. To clarify, I would be against such a change and understand it has nothing to do with FTLs except that new FTLs could be an impetus for new negotiations / contracts.

[Oval3Holer]

cxorcist, would you still be against such a change if it only applied to those on or wanting to go on a JFK base?

[bm330]

Just asking to be abused -

You have three weeks leave next month. How many hours do you think they'll roster this month? You'll spend most of your leave recovering from the 120hrs that CC would dump on you.

Without very specific wording, it won't just be limited to long haul either.

[Threethirty]

Why are they always pushing to make things worse in this place, nothing ever changes for the better, the AOA are nigh on useless. Every few years there is a major change to contracts or ftls, what will it be like in 10 years time, rolling hours, overtime at 120, 6 days off a month, min rest everywhere. Something has to give, greed has a limit, doesn't it?

[cxorcist]

Oval,

Yes, wouldn't you?

Seeing as how we are all on individual contracts though, I'm not sure there is much either of us could do about it. If someone is willing to agree to that as a precondition for the base, would we have recourse? On the basis of seniority and our existing contract, I hope the AOA could stop it but that did not happen when freighter commands on bases were first offered.

[Oval3Holer]

cxorcist,

Why would I be against something which would be beneficial to some pilots and not detrimental to others? I would NOT be against it.

What do you mean, "I hope the AOA could stop it?"

WE are the AOA. Why would the AOA want to stop it? "Normal" airlines have alls sorts of special rules to which the employees agreed, some of which benefit only certain groups but do not harm others.

Why would you want to see your fellow pilots not be able to get a base in JFK?

[cxorcist]

Oval,

Your response shows a fair bit of naïveté. Anything that degrades any CX pilots' contract hurts the group as a whole. It puts downward pressure on all of us, much like our icadets do now and B scale did back in the 90s. Also, anything that makes us disparate is bad for the unity of our pilot group, AOA Canada is a prime example of this as are bases in general. The more we have in common contractually, the better off we are as a group. It gives the company less opportunity to divide and conquer and makes our interests more similar, allowing a more concentrated and focused effort by the AOA.

Surely these concepts are not lost on someone as smart as you. I learned them as a child from my father, but so many in CX just cannot see the big picture. Perhaps they are too busy trying to get the mouth music right.

[tsimbeit]

cxorcist - You nailed it!

Oh not again, even a mouse in a laboratory knows when to stop when they have been shocked too many times. Shows the pilots aren't too bright.

The boys comparison of basings being good for pilots is like advocating pancreatic cancer as a form of weight loss.

[Kitsune]

Oval:
Your posts have an eerie echo of 'Well, the company has already set the pay and conditions for these new 'B' scales, crew want to join on them and it's not affecting us 'A' scalers, so what's the problem?' That is the exact reasoning that allowed 'B' scales. Every reduction in conditions or FTLs start off as a only affecting a small minority and are then used as a lever in the next major negotiations. If this is accepted EVERYBODY will be on the same conditions as the JFK base within 3 years...:cool:

Madness is definedas carrying out the same operation repeatedly with the same initial parameters and expecting a different result...:rolleyes:

[Oval3Holer]

cxorcist,

I am not naive, I am realistic. I agree that anything which differentiates one pilot's contract from that of another is not good for unity. However, it has been shown, both by OUR actions and those of the company since the early 1990s that we cannot stick together. Bases were a bright move by the company because the pilots only saw what it did for the pilots; the company saw it as a way to divide and conquer.

The company is not a stupid as some of us may think. They cleverly disguise something so we think we've "won" by getting it. In reality, their "loss" is not a loss at all.

If you think that there is some way to salvage and combine our fragmented pilot group I say that you are the one who is naive. Unfortunately (I wish it were not this way) it is every pilot for himself these days. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.

tsimbeit, I don't understand your metaphor. Are you saying that raising a family in clean air, with clean water to drink and in which to swim, natural food to eat, open spaces to explore (I could go on) is bad? I say that anyone who forces his family members (especially children) to live in the sh&t hole which is Hong Kong if he could otherwise be on a base is committing abuse! Bases ARE good for pilots AND their families.

Kitsune, what is the alternative? Do you really think the company would open JFK as a 777 base WITHOUT the concession of a rolling two-month EFT limit? You might think the company would be desperate to get people out of Hong Kong in order to save housing and education allowance. Well, I think they'd rather spend some extra money to KEEP people in Hong Kong so that they are under control and dependent on the company, therefore being unwilling to take any sort of unified action in order to maintain or secure better working conditions. It is often hard to differentiate between decisions CX makes based on money and those based on control.

We will all be on the conditions the company wants in three years whether we like it or not. We are irreparably fractured as a pilot group.

Think back to the 49ers, when we were supposedly unified. Did we stick together then and insist that the 49ers be reinstated immediately? Do you think there is ANY hope of us sticking together now that we have AOA Canada, AOA Australia and so many different CoS that we can't even count them anymore?

Madness is thinking that when faced with our next ultimatum we will somehow come together and force a result in our best interest rather than that of the company.

[tsimbeit]

We have met the enemy — and he is us.

A great group of professional pilots are not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.

The problems that exist today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them. Now while it is undoubtedly true that we cannot change the past, we definitely can learn from it. Indeed, we fail to do so at our peril

A good way to describe our boys myopia is to compare them to horses with blinders on. Now, would anyone dare to wager a bet on a horse whose eyesight is blinded from seeing the track? Of course not.

When both reason, reality fail to impact on pilots, perhaps all that remains is ridicule.

[Not Hiding]

http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/b/burn.jpg

[cxorcist]

Oval,

Basically what I am reading in your post is that you are a defeatist and a quitter, but justify it with your "realism" with respect to the past and present at CX. Is that about right? Every man for himself... Is that how we win? Or is that how we got into this mess in the first place?

Please reread my post #62. I think that puts me firmly in the realist category as it pertains to our contracts and the AOA. I'm not saying it is an easy fight, but no fight worth winning ever is. Agree?

[Oval3Holer]

cxorcist, I'll reproduce part of your post #62 here so we can determine who is a realist and who is a defeatist:

Seeing as how we are all on individual contracts though, I'm not sure there is much either of us could do about it. If someone is willing to agree to that as a precondition for the base, would we have recourse? On the basis of seniority and our existing contract, I hope the AOA could stop it but that did not happen when freighter commands on bases were first offered.

cxorcist, I don't see any difference between my position and yours. "...not sure there is much (we) could do about it..." The reality is that there is NOT much we could do about it because it's been proven and continues to be proven that we fail to stand together. Lots thought Dennis D. could lead the AOA members to a position of strength. I've seen nothing of the sort.

We really haven't been defeated because there has never been a battle, has there?

[GTC58]

It's getting better. The newest idea from our GMA is a 3 month rolling average of 252 hours before EFP for all of us. What fun it will be to negotiate the new RP's when the new FTL's come out.

[cxorcist]

Oval,

Unless I'm reading into it, the difference between me and you is that I back a strong AOA unified through its members. I think this is an achievable goal that has and will produce tangible results. The impression you leave me with is a concession to what amounts to a contract job where we get only what market forces dictate and not one bit more. I'm betting you are not an AOA member and have an elaborate explanation for that. You say we "cannot stick together." I say we can and will. This management has pushed far enough, and now they are looking to push further. IMO, they will meet very firm resistance.

GTC,

I would only sign off on a three month rolling average if the company is willing to link our payscales to the rate of inflation, permanently. Try that on next time you talk to the GMA.

[Oval3Holer]

cxorcist,

I back a strong AOA unified through its members. By stating that you think it's an achievable goal you imply that the AOA is presently NOT unified through its members. I agree. However, you are a dreamer and I am a realist. I have seen the AOA's unity (what little there was) continually erode with the advent of bases, on-shoring and on-shored sub-unions (true, AOA Canada is no longer a sub-union.)

I wholeheartedly believe that this is a contract job and we get what we get ONLY because market forces dictate it. Sure, the forces are not always easy to see in action because the opposing forces usually do not act against one another on a timely basis. This is why we often think the company doesn't understand what it's doing. However, Swire has been around for over 150 years. I don't think they've survived unhappy employees for that long unless they were playing the long chess game.

You won your bet. I am not an AOA member and I'm not going to explain or get into a debate why. However, if the AOA would ask its members to withhold their services I would honor a picket line. I am NOT a scab and never will be (unlike some AOA members.)

If you say we can and will stick together you are once again dreaming.

There have been nothing but broken promises by management and hollow threats by the AOA. I see no reason that will ever change.

[broadband circuit]

Talk to any freighter pilot who did not sign the Freighter PX letter. (most did not, and I'm yet to speak with anyone who did)

All that I have spoken with are absolutely adamant that their roster has IMPROVED with no freighter PXing. This is despite all of the doom & gloom from management, and the threats that it will get worse, and freighter bases will have to close etc etc etc.

Simple message - stick together & don't sign anything.

[Barronflyer]

Anyone wiling to sign off on "rolling" three month totals is very naive indeed, and really hasn't thought of the repercussions.

It seems that very few CX pilots have a line in the sand when it comes to the big ticket items. EFP thresholds is one of these. Just ask the boys at EK...

You allow the company more then 84 hours in ANY one month without consequence (EFP OT) and watch out..

This is not something to be negotiated on at ANY cost. Whats left of our lifestyle is being dwindled away day after day and many so called professionals on here willing to hand it to the company..

Unfortunately, these people also have a voice and therefore happy to vote s*** like this in as long as it suits their agenda to the complete detriment to the pilot body as a whole

I've never worked WITH a more spineless bunch.....

[Liam Gallagher]

On a rumour network you have read about the GMA's alledged latest brainwave. (a potential follow-up hit to the financially costly Freighter PX, the total :mad: up PAR closure).

Without any substantive evidence you have leapt to the view that your fellow pilots are going to sign up to this rumour and have immediately concluded they are spineless. Take a moment to consider how you got the RP's that provide these benefits and protections.

I suggest you step outside and give your head a wobble.

[Barronflyer]

Very good response Liam

I expected nothing else

My "assumption" is based purely on our track record when it comes to negotiating ANYTHING with this company

Your arrogant attitude suggests you believe that 500 posts on Pprune makes you an expert

Pull your head in

[Liam Gallagher]

I see the head wobble didn't work.

Sit down with a grown-up and get him/her to explain how your RP's came about. You will learn they came about, not because the company had a desire to pay you HDP and EFP, but because the company did not like the alternative.

Compare your RPs to your Housing Policy and Education Policy and Basings Policy and you will see your RPs are the only document the company cannot amend at their whim. Ask a grown-up why your RPs are different.

[Oval3Holer]

Liam, I don't think your attitude is arrogant. I think it's sensible.

[Liam Gallagher]

I not normally a cheerleader for the AOA, however I am mindful the RPs and Housing are two agreements the company would love to change. Warts and all, those two agreements are the reason I am still here. However, both Agreements only came about through the efforts of AOA volunteers and the members who funded/,supported those volunteers.

Even this week we have seen a group of pilots (Union and non-union) stand together and prize a small, but nonethess valuable, concession out of the company. However, Barronflyer is unaware of that. For him, the glass is not half full, but empty and his fellow pilots have failed to refill it.

The small concession attained this week probably came at a disproportionate price in terms of both dollars/Euros and volunteers time, however any concession achieved has to be valued, as it clear the new GMA does not think our glass is half full or half empty,- he thinks our glass is too big!!

[superfrozo]

:D

Tou - frickin' - che!

[cxorcist]

Oval,

I'm not interested in this going on forever. I do, however, think there is room for both optimism (as Liam addressed) and realism. They are not mutually exclusive regardless of this group's history or your own jaded perspective. I would rather be a "dreamer" than what you are because I believe this job is and will continue to be much better than a contract job. We have and will continue to do better than market forces even with the less than perfectly unified group we have now. Note that guys like you do nothing to help things, even if you are not a scab.

In closing I'll ask you (and anyone who would like to answer), would the company rather have with 2800 Ovals or 2800 cxorcists in their quest to lower costs? I think we all know the answer to that one. Your pessimistic attitude serves only to embrace the conciliation the company strives for. I'll leave you with some things this group has done well over the last few years:

- membership drive to over 80% from 50%
- informal integration of the LPF into the AOA
- educational allowance and HKPA for non-expat pilots
- SLS 2009 which was repaid (mostly)
- 25 year housing (even if it is not in writing)
- AOA access to new joiners
- choice for RA55 and BPP or RA65
- valiant losing effort in the SO BPP case
- pay rise in 2011 with no concessions
- "favorable" result for AMS based pilots
- strong HKALPA and AOA influence on new FTLs
- freighter PX win without legal expense in court
- collective bargaining negotiations in both Oz and Canada
- undetermined, but hopeful, result for Paris based pilots

I'm sure I missed some. Feel free to add to the list...

[whackthemole]

reality check.

- membership drive to over 80% from 50%
And exactly why is 8 cowards better than 5?

- informal integration of the LPF into the AOA
Great.

- educational allowance and HKPA for non-expat pilots
the RDO took care of that without the AOAs help.

- SLS 2009 which was repaid (mostly)
and who fixed this for the other 20,000 HK staff? the AOA?

- 25 year housing (even if it is not in writing)
you're joking, right? the AOA has been camped outside the DFOs door for 3 years trying to get this honored, only to hear is the howling laughter from inside. Do you recall what 'hook' was attached to this little scam?

- AOA access to new joiners
see post about packing more cowards into the same boat. Numbers don't achieve anything. Achievements do.

- choice for RA55 and BPP or RA65
awesome choice for Canada and Australia. Where did the "extension on current terms" argument go? So now we can choose to work 10 extra years for basically the same total remuneration we would have had with RA55 / bypass pay combination. I work 10 years extra, but consequentially get my command 7 years later? where do I sign? Oh, I lose my BPP?

- valiant losing effort in the SO BPP case
By blowing millions on dollars to fumble the ball in the end zone?

- pay rise in 2011 with no concessions
we argued for 34%. We received increases individually varying between 0.6% and 14.4%. For some, the AOA dues surpass their payrise.

- "favorable" result for AMS based pilots
having their base shut down and taking a massive paycut? "favorable" to who? The company? Senior officers in HK waiting for a base? For certain European individuals?

- strong HKALPA and AOA influence on new FTLs
Agreed.

- freighter PX win without legal expense in court
CX lawyers advising the 9th floor managers that they are, in face, violating our CoS and therefore will lose in court might have influenced this one. The company successfully managed to ignore and appease the AOAs scary letters for the better part of a decade; it took individual members filings of D&G proceedings to get this ball rolling, not the AOAs foot-stomping.

- collective bargaining negotiations in both Oz and Canada
Yes. That went real well, didn't it. AOAC split and ran off with the loot while the AOAA faces 'permanent relocation.'

- undetermined, but hopeful, result for Paris based pilots
too little too late I'm afraid.


I'll add some more to the list:

-Failure to stop C scale
-Failure to stop BCF production outsourced to AHK and ACC
-Failure to stop DECs


I'm sure I missed some. Feel free to add to the list...

[FERetd]

Whackthemole - a fair esponse to cxorsist's post. May I add a few more to your list/

Failure to stop B Scales
Failure to stop ASL
Failure with the 49er's episode

I was with the company for twenty years but I was a member of the the AOA for only 9 years. I ceased being a member of the AOA after the introduction of ASL, when the company decided not renew my (and 41 other Flight Engineer's) contract and then gave me the opportunity to apply for my old job with a 50% pay cut. I took the opportunity - I needed a job.

And the HKAOA did NOTHING.

[FERetd]

Curtain Rod, if you are suggesting that the AOA could do nothing, then why bother to join.

I always, however, recommended new Captains to join the AOA, only for the sake of legal protection in the event of an incident/accident.

To hope for anything more is a pipedream.

I should point out that there were some very good people in the AOA during my time and I do have the utmost respect for them. Nigel D. springs to mind immediately.

There were also a few self serving people and for those I have nothing but contempt.

However, my criticism of the AOA is not directed at the people but of the Association's effectiveness.

[FERetd]

Curtain rod, industrial action is the only tool available and we know that that is not going to happen. You can't even get people to stop working on a G Day.

As has been stated many times on this forum there is no unity within the pilot group, self interest dominates.

This being the case the AOA can/could do nothing.

Other than to build up a war chest for future legal actions, why bother to join?

[Scoreboard]

I remember JFK wasnt a base choice due the expecetd flight rotation leading to radiation levels? Maybe corrected?

[crwjerk]

Correct. CX Accounting department has now determined that there is NO problem with radiation on the JFK-HK-JFK route.

[FERetd]

Curtain Rod, I think that our little exchange has run its course.

In closing, I reiterate that the HKAOA did nothing for me (or my 41 colleagues). Whether it did nothing or achieved nothing is really irrelevant. The fact is that the Association was ineffective.

I was surprised, disappointed and upset when the AOA did nothing for the plight of 42 F/Es (not to mention the effect that ASL had on upgrades for F/Os and S/Os) - that is when I ceased being a member of the Association.

The Ts & Cs that I "enjoyed" after twenty years were significantly worse than those that I enjoyed when I joined the company.

However, if the AOA floats your boat, then give it your money.

Just don't expect too much.

[Liam Gallagher]

I do remember 5-4-3, however if the membership votes to accept a change, then that is the nature of democracy.

In the case of 5-4-3, the company was very determined to do away with it and I appreciate it is perhaps a simplification to say we voted it away, however the majority accepted RPs that did not have 5-4-3. The majority accepted that the HDP/overtime provisions compensated them for the loss of 5-4-3. Such is the nature of the give and take in the negotiation process.

Applying that principle further, I suppose if the company offered a price for a three-month rolling average overtime that was acceptable to the majority of the membership, then such is the nature of a democracy.

If the NY base opened and the company stipulated a unique overtime threshold for that base, if some members found that acceptable, should the AOA oppose the Base?

Most of the bases have unique features. Some bad, some good. The Australians get long-service leave, however I don't. Should I be upset over that? Of course not, it just compensates them for having a shoite cricket team:}

[Progress Wanchai]

You have an interesting view of history if you think the RP07 vote was a fair and democratic process Liam.

[LongTimeInCX]

it just compensates them for having a shoite cricket team
Ok, now you've really overstepped the mark!

[cxorcist]

Would somebody please explain to me how YYZ base did or does not have the same radiation problem that JFK or ORD base would? That always seemed like the lamest excuse, and the fact that so many bought it for so long astounds me.

[BillytheKid]

Liam-

Yes the AOA should oppose the JFK base if it's terms are below standard. Those sub-standard terms affect everyone else that chooses not to be on the JFK base.

[blade]

Exactly,based deals on different overtime thresholds mean we HKG based crews will lose our overtime also as they fill the base and use and abuse those guys

[broadband circuit]

Lesser deals for ANY of our colleagues, even if only a small group, becomes the benchmark for the rest of us.

The bean counters are constantly trying to reduce our conditions. I know that sometimes stopping them is not easy, but at the very least can we stop helping them by accepting mini side deals.......

please.......

[Progress Wanchai]

Blade, I couldn't be happier if the based guys EFP started at 100+ hours and I was rostered for (and flew) 84.00.

Like them, maybe I'd get a lifestyle back again.

[blade]

Never open a door for a glimpse at what you think will benefit you by lowering conditions..This will bite us all one day thats for sure..

This is not progress.

Why would the company want it,EFP over 3 months..

May it benefit some,yes

Would it bite us in the arse,yes

[Liam Gallagher]

If the GMA is only concerned about getting 3 HKG returns a month without incurring overtime, he could open a JFK base, but offer it on a lower salary than say LAX/ SFO, such that the salary plus overtime on the JFK base equals the non -overtime salary of the LAX/SFO base. Bottom line, everyone does 3 HKG returns and gets the same amount in their pay packet.

If that package is not attractive to the individual pilots, don't take the Base. The AOA should be happy that everyone remains on the overtime threshold.

Obviously, the person not happy with this solution is the GMA, because we all know this has nothing to do with making the JFK base work, and everything to do with lowering the not insignificant overtime bill caused by his predecessors' inability to offer a package to attract and retain sufficient pilots.

[broadband circuit]

I couldn't be happier if the based guys EFP started at 100+ hours and I was rostered for (and flew) 84.00.

Are you nuts??? Once they're on a 100 hour RP, how long do think it would be before the rest of us have it forced upon us?

Your justification:

Like them, maybe I'd get a lifestyle back again.

is a classic case of short term benefit for long term pain.

Despite your handle, what you are proposing is not "Progress", it's retrogression!

[Progress Wanchai]

You must be either on the 747 or based to think that 100 hour months is retrogression compared with what's going on now. (either way you'll be joining my world shortly ;))

The only difference between my proposal and what I have now is that there actually is a short term benefit.

[blade]

777,900 a year just like you..
100 plus hours last month,so would I like that month back yes,but do I want it at this expensive,never in a million years..