SIA Pilot union fark Govt and SIA !

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - SIA Pilot union fark Govt and SIA !</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>May-21 10:04 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>33496.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>May 22, 2010

Changing pay-cut mindset: Govt-linked firms must take lead

<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
WHILE the joint reply by the Singapore National Employers Federation, the Ministry of Manpower and the National Trades Union Congress on Thursday is heartening ('Less than 3% of private firms cut older workers' wages'), how many government and government-linked companies implement the wage cut for older workers?
From our experience with Singapore Airlines (SIA), it was simply the extraction of the maximum cut permissible under the law, without any due regard given to the reasonable mitigation factors provided under the legislation.
It was really a case of no cut, no job. This was despite the fact that there was no change other than the pilot turning 60 years old.
What is worse is that of late, SIA Cargo has come up with a scheme that will employ a national pilot beyond age 62 only on a daily-rated basis. There is no assurance of any minimum level of monthly income. Effectively, that would be a wage cut beyond 10 per cent.
As pilots, we can work up to age 65, legally. Here is a company that has been struggling to stay above water, and yet it is willing to hire the more expensive expatriate pilot on a longer contract term, with the attendant costs such as housing and child allowances.
Why are they denying the national pilot, who helped build up the national icon, the same opportunity of a job until the end of his useful working life?
We are not asking for freebies, merely fairness and equity.
How can one, and a national at that, be denied a job, or even be offered unfavourable terms, just because of his age?
I know that efforts are being made at all levels to change the mindset and to discourage discrimination based on age, but for this lifelong employment initiative to really take off, all government and government-linked companies must be directed to take the lead and do the right thing.
Captain P. James
President
Air Line Pilots Association - Singapore

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

 

[Logisex]

My Ang Mo boss used to love to fly SIA and don't mind paying a premium until their standard dropped. I agree with him its mind boggling how stupid the company can get to throw away something that that they have built over the years. Its like taking great care to rear a golden goose and then one day decide to slaughter it for no particular reason.

When the whole industry is turning to budget airline and improving their service for the cost conscious consumers/companies, this goon company is going the opposite way. It's mind boggling indeed.........

 

[Papsmearer]

My Ang Mo boss used to love to fly SIA and don't mind paying a premium until their standard dropped. I agree with him its mind boggling how stupid the company can get to throw away something that that they have built over the years. Its like taking great care to rear a golden goose and then one day decide to slaughter it for no particular reason.

When the whole industry is turning to budget airline and improving their service for the cost conscious consumers/companies, this goon company is going the opposite way. It's mind boggling indeed.........

They have no real competition. ALl the airlines in S'pore are GLC, eg. Silkair, Tiger, etc. In the past, when SQ was profitable, it was not really profitable thru flight operations. They used to sell their planes on the open market to keep their fleet young, and because of the sharp appreciation in prices for new planes, they made money selling their old ones. Also, they cater to ang mos more on their flights than local sinkies. Considering we are their core market, they are being really stupid.

I am flying on SQ later this year after many years of boycotting them. I will see what their standards are.

 

[Watchman]

I grow to hate them after listening to friends how they were exploited and marginalised .

It makes me boil .

Time for them to go down and bankrupt to be resurrected as a new company .

 

[Watchman]

Why is the worlds favourite and expensive airline still losing money?

Did Lee lated CEO screw up or ended up helping themselves with the profits and siphoning off to some secret bank account?

I dun understand please enlighten me!

They the SIA carriers can continue to
penny-pinch and state high running costs .
A black and white book need to be publish before
we support them .

And they can continue to cut and hold staff pay .
Hire foreign FTs exchange .

We can continue to NOT fly them till they offer
reasonably high pay and bring back Singaporean girls .

As pilots, we can work up to age 65, legally. Here is a company that has been struggling to stay above water, and yet it is willing to hire the more expensive expatriate pilot on a longer contract term, with the attendant costs such as housing and child allowances.
Why are they denying the national pilot, who helped build up the national icon, the same opportunity of a job until the end of his useful working life?
We are not asking for freebies, merely fairness and equity.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

Firstly he neglects to mention, that OLDER senior pilots tend to be more expensive. He should be upfront and clear that he is defending the position of older flight officers with high pay based on seniority versus newer, younger and perhaps yes lower cost pilots both foreign and possibly local.

The older pilots are still flying albeit on less generous terms.



Locke

 

[Papsmearer]

Dear PAP

Firstly he neglects to mention, that OLDER senior pilots tend to be more expensive. He should be upfront and clear that he is defending the position of older flight officers with high pay based on seniority versus newer, younger and perhaps yes lower cost pilots both foreign and possibly local.

The older pilots are still flying albeit on less generous terms.



Locke

So what? Older pilots are not inferior pilots, and there is no substitute for experience. Sullenberger was 57 years old at the time of the Hudson river crash and his co-pilot was 49. There are lots of case history where an experience pilot was the difference. Cheap younger indian or mainland chinese pilots flying my plane will be my worse nightmare. SHould be yours too.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

Nothing about inferior or skill sets. However just as you quote one case of experience, the converse holds true as well that experienced pilots have "frakked it up" case in point the SQ 006 disaster in Tai Pei.

Look they are just rehiring older more expensive pilots on less generous terms.


Locke

 

[Papsmearer]

Dear PAP

Nothing about inferior or skill sets. However just as you quote one case of experience, the converse holds true as well that experienced pilots have "frakked it up" case in point the SQ 006 disaster in Tai Pei.

Look they are just rehiring older more expensive pilots on less generous terms.


Locke

I am sorry, u talking about the SQ Taipei crashed? U mean the chap that crashed the plane was the cheaper, less expensive FT pilot from Malaysia Capt. Foong Chee Kong? U mean the FT Malaysian pilot who was in your words so experienced he line up on the wrong runway, and shut his co-pilot up when he tried to tell him this? That experienced pilot? U are such an idiot. Experience cost money. In the aviation industry, u cannot be cheap on this. The margin for error is very little. U can fire an experienced bus driver and hire an inexperienced one. If the inexperienced driver gets into an accident, only a few people are killed or injured and a $100K bus damaged. A less experienced pilot gets into an accident, 300 people die and $120 million plane is lost. See the difference?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

Capt Fong was an experienced pilot with substantial, hours so was the AF Pilot who over ran a runway in Vancouver, the AF pilot who took his brand new A320 on a fly by etc etc. My point was that experience pilots are just as prone to critical mistakes as to saving the passengers in life or death one in a million situations.

No one in the article was talking of firing, rather he was talking of the SQ Cargo example of hiring on contract terms or a pay cut.


Locke

 

[scroobal]

SIA and its pilots have had an interesting relationship from day 1. I don't think anyone can pinpoint what the cause is from the very start. One pundit floated an interesting argument during a managment course and those in the course all seem to think it had legs.

Unlike most professionals who make some sort of supervisory, executive or management decision on a daily basis, pilots in an airline are no different to a bus driver in fleet. Overtime, they are unable to fathom the requirements of management and behave just like an ordinary worker. If you come to think of it, a pilot does not budget plans, no objectives, no strategy plan, ie, All he does is turn up for duty based on a timetable.

I have no doubt that the job is tough but it stands by itself. Interesting view.

I saw the letter and it certainly has some holes. Why would a company incur higher costs by employing foreigners unless the cost is cheaper. It just does not add up. In all other sectors, Singaporeans are losing their jobs because of cheaper foreigners. Either James' maths is wrong or SIA is the dumbest company in the world.

 

[red amoeba]

it depends largely on the ppl managing the company & please also look at who is the majority shareholder - u really think like what they say during the funeral, they won't interfere in the running of biz?

Secondly, these older pilots have very good welfare packages - from first class ticket entitlement to leave etc etc...these are also costs to the company.

 

[redlightmeansgo]

My Ang Mo boss used to love to fly SIA and don't mind paying a premium until their standard dropped. I agree with him its mind boggling how stupid the company can get to throw away something that that they have built over the years. Its like taking great care to rear a golden goose and then one day decide to slaughter it for no particular reason.

When the whole industry is turning to budget airline and improving their service for the cost conscious consumers/companies, this goon company is going the opposite way. It's mind boggling indeed.........

It's not just SIA that prefers the fair skin. Every other industry here seems to give preferential treatment to the fucking ang moh. Just look at the TV stations. Have you seen an Asian hosting a football show on prime time? Even the fucking commentator on Asian Football Show is Ang moh!!!!

When the myth about your cock length gets perpetuated out of proportion, so does the myth that ang moh has more creative and marketing value.

All I know is they can talk and suck their boss's and clients' damn well. I know because I employ some of these dogs :oIo:

 

[myfoot123]

Singapore government is well-known for not acting what they preached: such as employment of senior workers, promise of swiss standard of livings, ensure people are not homeless, increase productivity of Singapore, improving our standard of services, empty promise of comfortable transport system, smoke us about home affordability, hiking GST to help the poor is a complete lie, wayang about caring for the people....the list goes on and on.

 

[Papsmearer]

SIA and its pilots have had an interesting relationship from day 1. I don't think anyone can pinpoint what the cause is from the very start. One pundit floated an interesting argument during a managment course and those in the course all seem to think it had legs.

Unlike most professionals who make some sort of supervisory, executive or management decision on a daily basis, pilots in an airline are no different to a bus driver in fleet. Overtime, they are unable to fathom the requirements of management and behave just like an ordinary worker. If you come to think of it, a pilot does not budget plans, no objectives, no strategy plan, ie, All he does is turn up for duty based on a timetable.

I have no doubt that the job is tough but it stands by itself. Interesting view.

I saw the letter and it certainly has some holes. Why would a company incur higher costs by employing foreigners unless the cost is cheaper. It just does not add up. In all other sectors, Singaporeans are losing their jobs because of cheaper foreigners. Either James' maths is wrong or SIA is the dumbest company in the world.

What's so difficult to fathom out? Pilots are the elites in their field. Anyone can be a manager, but not anyone can be a commercial pilot. A pilot holds the life of hundreds of people and millions of dollars in his hands every day. Which part of this don't u understand? Who would you want flying your plane? A senior experienced EXPENSIVE angmo pilot, or a younger, less experienced CHEAPER Indian/SInkie/PRC/Malaysian/Indon/Thai pilot? If you prefer the cheaper pilot, good for you. Your odds of dying just went up. When it comes to my safety, I would rather the airline pay the better pilot the money they deserved.

 

[Char_Azn]

Why is the worlds favourite and expensive airline still losing money?

Did Lee lated CEO screw up or ended up helping themselves with the profits and siphoning off to some secret bank account?

I dun understand please enlighten me!

Well it doesn't seem to me like they are losing money. For the work year 2009, profit before tax is 1.1billion. Maybe it's becoz I'm a frog in a well but 1.1B still sounds like a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines#Financial_performance

U can also check financial statement from their website
http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/financial/SGXAnnFY0910.pdf

First 2 results from googling. Seriously, U should do some research. Most of them like to pull facts from their asses

 

[longbow]

Actually the gov has been talking about people's need to work longer. SO why not do the same for SIA? Instead of hiring FT why not just encourage people to retire later.

Also by making it acceptable to work to an older age we should cap seniority pay increases after maybe 60 - to be fair to employer as well as create demand for older employees.

A lter retirement age also make it more likely for someone at 55 to retrain for another job since he still has another 15 years of economic life. Many Singaporeans with poly degrees are left to useless taxi driving type jobs. Why not instead, allow them to go back to uni and come back out with a software programming degree or whatever is in demand. This way you have economic activity for 20 years of a uni grad programmer vs 20 years as a taxi driver. Guess who would need less of a handout from the Gov when they both turn 70.

A uni grad could probably make avg of $6K (including benefits) vs $3K for taxi driver. The 3K diff over 20 years is a huge amount of $$$.

 

[Char_Azn]

SIA and its pilots have had an interesting relationship from day 1. I don't think anyone can pinpoint what the cause is from the very start. One pundit floated an interesting argument during a managment course and those in the course all seem to think it had legs.

Unlike most professionals who make some sort of supervisory, executive or management decision on a daily basis, pilots in an airline are no different to a bus driver in fleet. Overtime, they are unable to fathom the requirements of management and behave just like an ordinary worker. If you come to think of it, a pilot does not budget plans, no objectives, no strategy plan, ie, All he does is turn up for duty based on a timetable.

I have no doubt that the job is tough but it stands by itself. Interesting view.

I saw the letter and it certainly has some holes. Why would a company incur higher costs by employing foreigners unless the cost is cheaper. It just does not add up. In all other sectors, Singaporeans are losing their jobs because of cheaper foreigners. Either James' maths is wrong or SIA is the dumbest company in the world.

There's a huge difference between Bus driver vs Bus company and Pilot vs SIA coz the average pilot in SIA earn more then their own CEO. Maybe it just me but I find it very hard to empathize with pple who earn that much money

 

[SIFU]

There's a huge difference between Bus driver vs Bus company and Pilot vs SIA coz the average pilot in SIA earn more then their own CEO. Maybe it just me but I find it very hard to empathize with pple who earn that much money

r u sure????