-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
SIA pilots urged by union to boycott dinner
- Thread starter MarrickG
- Start date
new CEO new style...new brooms sweep clean.
Think the Union miss having kopi with MM...waiting for invitation to visit Istana...
Think the Union miss having kopi with MM...waiting for invitation to visit Istana...
Dear Tracy
I will add another hidden agenda of ALPA and its all about money and privelage. The question is simple.....Why do they not fight for an increase in the retirement age from 62 to 65 but instead fight for retirement at 62 but with same pay and privelages.
Simply put if airline rank and pay is senoirity determined, then if I fuck of at 62 with same pay but working the same some other young pilot takes over my rank and privelage at 50, However if I fuck of at 65, then the other pilot takes over my rank and privelage only at 65 with no double dipping
Locke
I will add another hidden agenda of ALPA and its all about money and privelage. The question is simple.....Why do they not fight for an increase in the retirement age from 62 to 65 but instead fight for retirement at 62 but with same pay and privelages.
Simply put if airline rank and pay is senoirity determined, then if I fuck of at 62 with same pay but working the same some other young pilot takes over my rank and privelage at 50, However if I fuck of at 65, then the other pilot takes over my rank and privelage only at 65 with no double dipping
Locke
Nowadays, air plane is put on auto pilot. I wont say that will be perfect. You just need the co pilot to fly the plane. Anything wrong , co pilot will consult the senior pilot. They just need to mend on take off and landing.
Pilot pay is this high is because they are in charge of life of few hundreds passenger in one go.
Why must pilot take a pay cut at 62 ? How about the CEO ? If the CEO manage to cut the pay of those pilot. His own salary will sore like a fighter plane.
Pilot pay is this high is because they are in charge of life of few hundreds passenger in one go.
Why must pilot take a pay cut at 62 ? How about the CEO ? If the CEO manage to cut the pay of those pilot. His own salary will sore like a fighter plane.
Of course what I say is true. All i did was quote what was stated in the ST article. Read it carefully and see for yourself if you don't believe me.
No, they are allowed to fly to 65 as per international convention. They are in no way 'not supposed to fly' past 62. Pilots everywhere do the same job regardless of age. Do you think a captain carries less responsibility for his 300 passengers, or flies the plane any less than he usually does on his 62nd birthday? We are not talking about factory jobs where your output obviously decreases when you hit old age. Legally, and by sheer logic alone, a pilot's job description and responsibility stays exactly the same, regardless of age. Would we as passengers accept any less than this? the It is simply because our national retirement age used to be 62, now increased to 65, that carriers like SQ want a pay cut on pilots crossing 62 years of age. The only variable factor here is AGE, not diminished capacity, or shady re-hiring practices
Try asking our geriatric PAP MPs like LKY who already obviously display diminished capacity who do the same jobs (in fact, less work, like 'just forecasting') past 62 to take a pay cut when they turn 62 whilst keeping their current portfolio. What do you reckon they will say?
My question is how come the rules apply to some and not to others? Is it because some are more equal than others?
Last edited:
Alpha-S is not member of NTUC. The others are.
SIA is gov't controlled, so it's pilots vs the Spore gov't. Spore has the reputation for poor employee rights & suppressing wages.
Sure they can join SIA & face alot of hassles that Spore worker faces but why would they want to
If their services are in demand internationally, isn't it more hassle free to join other world class companies
Since SIA's home base is SG, I think it is easier for the pilots with families in SG as most routes will include SG as a stopover. If you work for other airlines, you may need to relocate your family or see them less often.
my pilot friends told me it is a breeze to fly airplanes now, unlike those earlier days where they have to manually fly the aircraft...in fact planes can be flown pilotless ...that's how easy it is
From the comments, it is clear that the argument boils down to:
"Is it justifiable to reduce your pay simply because you get to a certain age?"
Remember that there is always a way to mitigate for other factors like company making losses, pilots' medical condition and so on.
If you are doing the same job and not having any medical problems, why should the company cut your pay just because of your age? They can always have clauses that your salary is dependent on whether you are certified medically fit to carry out your job. I will agree that if a pilot is no longer fit to fly an aircraft, then he should not be getting the same level of pay.
If you ask me, the issue is simply that the management is just out to slash costs and increase profits rather than being concerned about the pilots' health or maintaining the reputation of the airline. If that is the case, why should the union happily acquiesced to the demands of management without a fight?
"Is it justifiable to reduce your pay simply because you get to a certain age?"
Remember that there is always a way to mitigate for other factors like company making losses, pilots' medical condition and so on.
If you are doing the same job and not having any medical problems, why should the company cut your pay just because of your age? They can always have clauses that your salary is dependent on whether you are certified medically fit to carry out your job. I will agree that if a pilot is no longer fit to fly an aircraft, then he should not be getting the same level of pay.
If you ask me, the issue is simply that the management is just out to slash costs and increase profits rather than being concerned about the pilots' health or maintaining the reputation of the airline. If that is the case, why should the union happily acquiesced to the demands of management without a fight?
The same can be said of the management of the company, it is all about money. I don't understand what you are saying about retirement with same pay. They are fighting for rehiring at the same pay. There is nothing about retirement. If they retire, then they don't get paid. The retirement age is going to get raised to 65 in 2012, why do they still need to fight for that? They are fighting to get rehired without having to suffer a pay cut.
Its precisely because of the fact that ALPA is in a unique position to fight back that we Singaporeans should support them
Thats not how it works in flying. Either you are 100% capable of doing the job or you are not. There is no middle ground. Fail your medical? Fail your multitudes of 6 monthly and yearly flight checks? Out you go.There is no gradual lowering of standards as you get older, in fact they get more stringent since you have the benefit of experience, and there are greater threats to your health, they expect more out of you, and are extra careful not to pass your med test unless they are 100% sure. Thats the kind of standard passengers expect when they pay thousands to be taken safely from Point A to B. You can't bargain capability in airline transport when the smallest cockup could result in 300 deaths. You either fully make the cut, regardless of age, or you don't, upon which you stop being a pilot.
Since capability is non-negotiable, how come pay: based solely on age, is?
Dear Spock
A pilots position and pay are based on promotions up in grades etc. In the US when the retirement age was raised to 65 it was not supported by some younger pilots because precisely it meant that THEY had greater opportunity to move up in senoirity and grade and hence money.
What ALPA is the cake and they want to eat it, retire at 62 keep privealage and pay and still offer the younger pilots a chance at the pie. If they raised the retirement age to 65 then the younger pilots would not have so fast a chance at the same pie. Thus they are fighting for retirement at 62 at the same privelaged pay.
Locke
A pilots position and pay are based on promotions up in grades etc. In the US when the retirement age was raised to 65 it was not supported by some younger pilots because precisely it meant that THEY had greater opportunity to move up in senoirity and grade and hence money.
What ALPA is the cake and they want to eat it, retire at 62 keep privealage and pay and still offer the younger pilots a chance at the pie. If they raised the retirement age to 65 then the younger pilots would not have so fast a chance at the same pie. Thus they are fighting for retirement at 62 at the same privelaged pay.
Locke
Cruising has never been a problem, not only nowadays but since the good days. Try taking off and landing on auto-pilot.
+1 Sorry locke you are not making sense.
really touched by Alpha-S. Wish they hv more guts. Outsiders may think pilots' pay dammed good, but compared to hong kong's cathay pacific, taiwan's china airline, their pay and perks are pathetic. So no fault on the pilots. SIA charges passengers one of the highest fare in the world but pay pilots at 2nd-tier rate. Simply explotation. Knn, our 'mini-stars' pay are HIGHEST in the world but our so-called best airline in the world don't pay our pilots HIGHEST in the world. What logic is this. Singapore economy not first class, small country but politician are paid the BEST on EARTH. Knn...squeeze people to fatten own pockets (many pockets, about 83).
hahaha...evrybody can have their own views but let us get the basic principles right first.
Retirement: age can be any age; SAF/Home team etc much lower....
also there is such thing as early retirement due to medical grounds.
at the moment, we are talking about 62yo mandatory retirement for the pilots.
when you hit 62yo, Company can ask you to retire or upon mutual agreement, you can be re-employed.
Re-employement: re-employment is always re-negotiated on a case by case ; however most cases you will loose seniority/pay, medical benefits, leave entitlement etc.
Scenerio:
If Govt has not publicly announced Mandatory retirement age to be increased to 65yo in 2012, then there is no issue.
Dispute:
ALPA S maybe looking at 2012.
fact is negotiation started in 2010 and now is still 2011.
what is the existing Mandatory retirement age - 62 yo right?
hence if you hit 62yo in 2011, then you are considered as re-employed and the terms will definitely be different.
Next question is how long does such agreement between ALPA S and SIA last and how it will affect those reaching 62yo in 2012?
Yes in this case, ALPA S may have a case if those reaching 62yo after 2012 are also affected.
Retirement: age can be any age; SAF/Home team etc much lower....
also there is such thing as early retirement due to medical grounds.
at the moment, we are talking about 62yo mandatory retirement for the pilots.
when you hit 62yo, Company can ask you to retire or upon mutual agreement, you can be re-employed.
Re-employement: re-employment is always re-negotiated on a case by case ; however most cases you will loose seniority/pay, medical benefits, leave entitlement etc.
Scenerio:
If Govt has not publicly announced Mandatory retirement age to be increased to 65yo in 2012, then there is no issue.
Dispute:
ALPA S maybe looking at 2012.
fact is negotiation started in 2010 and now is still 2011.
what is the existing Mandatory retirement age - 62 yo right?
hence if you hit 62yo in 2011, then you are considered as re-employed and the terms will definitely be different.
Next question is how long does such agreement between ALPA S and SIA last and how it will affect those reaching 62yo in 2012?
Yes in this case, ALPA S may have a case if those reaching 62yo after 2012 are also affected.
hahaha...gugu, a little knowledge is dangerous.
Yes there are a lot of UAVs/Drones flying around.
USA has just announced that they have successfully tested jet propelled drones recently.
So yes, the new passengers jets are basically fly by wire controlled by computers. (Also the planes can be pre-programmed for auto take/off and landing).
But that's where you need competent and experienced pilots even more.
In a routine flight, any pilot is not going to make a difference.
However if there is a mulfunction, then your lives depend on the pilots of the day.
Case1: Quantas A-380 engine exploded above Batam causing damages to the wing and control flaps. In such a case, the problem with highly automated system is that you will have hundreds of errror messages and all the beeping sounds inside the cockpit. You need cool headed and competent to get the plane safely back on land.
Case2: Passenger plane landed safely in Hudson despite suffering flame-out on all 4 engines shortly after take-off. Again the pilots made the difference.
Just a side dish....the space shuttles are basically equipped with late 70s/early 80s technology. The computers onboard then have much less computing power than your note books now.
However, the re-entry which is one of the most critical phase of each mission is totally controlled by the onboard computers. The shuttle must re-enter the earth's atmosphere at a certain angle....too steep and the shuttle will explode and too small angle the shuttle will literally bounced off back into outer space.
Similar threads
