SIA pilots urged by union to boycott dinner

[blackreplica]

Dear Black

Retirement age goes up next year. So why are the SQ pilots not fighting to raise the fucking mandatory retirement age in SQ to 65 in line with the ICAO and current FAA regulations ?

They don't have to fight for it because they already have it: retirement age is 65 starting next year, legislation is in place to make it mandatory, and SQ has no choice but to go with it.What the pilots are fighting for is to maintain the exact same pay package past 62 up to 65 which is the retirement age

Thats not their fight and has never been the fight. WHAT they are fighting for is retirement at 62 with pay and privelage they have accrued according to seniority all the way till 62 and I as a shareholder think that is crap.

That is NOT what they are doing. It is SQ that wants pilots to be re-employed at 62 up to retirement age 65 at less pay. The unions do not accept this and are fighting it.

The govt has decided to raise retirement to 65. Pilots are legally able to fly to 65. The union wants to keep their pay package till retirement: 65. The pilots will be working FULL TIME (not in any kind of semi-retired capacity) past 62 until 65 when they retire and stop flying completely. The company wants them to take a pay cut in the last 3 years before they retire. Same job, same scope, same amount of working hours, same responsibility, LESS pay, only because you're 62. it's not rocket science.

The issue is what happens past the mandatory SQ retirement age of 62. WHY not fight for it to be raised to 65 ?

There is no mandatory SQ retirement age. By law, SQ is legally obligated to retire it's staff no earlier than 65 starting next year. The retirement age goes up to 65 next year and there is nothing SQ can do about it. SQ is simply using the raise in retirement age as an excuse to sneak in a pay cut using the term 're-employment', applicable to the last three years before retirement from 62-65

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Black

Do a google, when the US raised the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. Those that had already retired because of the old rules and who were now allowed to fly could only come back on terms agreeable to the airlines and on lower pay.

What the Unions want is to back date everything so as to protect their older members for money money. If u are 62 this year then u do not retire but carry on flying and being paid the same till 65. because next year the age changes to 65. Well tough if u are 62 you retire at 62 and if next year its 65 and u were 62 this year then to fucking bad its life and its bad luck



Locke

 

[blackreplica]

Dear Black

What the Unions want is to back date everything so as to protect their older members for money money. If u are 62 this year then u do not retire but carry on flying and being paid the same till 65. because next year the age changes to 65. Well tough if u are 62 you retire at 62 and if next year its 65 and u were 62 this year then to fucking bad its life and its bad luck

Locke

Locke,

Can you quote your source wrt the above? A no point in the union-SQ exchanges did i see any mention anywhere of any kind of backdating for those who turn 62 before 2012. The negotiations are for those turning 62 after 2012. Before 2012, standard policy applies.

I am curious to know where you are coming up with this.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Black

In 2011 the retirement age is 62. What happens to the pilots who turn 62 this year ? The disagreement between SQ and the Pilots is about their pay post retirement and how that is calculated .

Lets just say in 2012 the retirement age turns to 65. Well what happens to those who turn 62 in 2012 , no issue there as they continue working at the same pay till 65. What happens to those who turned 62 in 2011 or for that matter turned 62 in 2010 or 2009 ? Should they be employed back at the same pay or should they just fuck off and retire. They ARPA wants them back at almost the same pay. SQ is saying no fucking way.



Locke

 

[Ramseth]

I visited the cockpit post 9/11

I was allowed into the cockpit ...how cld I violate the law when I got permission to go into the cockpit??

hahaha...gugu, the pilots have no authority to give permission for you to go into the cockpit; especially post 911.......you can plead ignorance but the pilots are definitely breaking Regulations.

Kukubird, the pilots got horny and broke rules to court your Gugu!

 

[scroobal]

Might as throw in my 2 cents

History of SIA Unions
All 5 unions within SIA refused to join NTUC from the very start as they were some of the best Singaporeans who were better educated and thus knew the politics behind it. In fact they were the only outliers in Singapore. SIA to build it image internationally hired the best and all spoke English very well. They were only interested in fighting for their members and saw no reason to be with NTUC. Now that all has gone except for the pilots.

SIA Unions vs SIA
Being well travelled and better educated they are well aware of the pay and terms of all other airlines. They know if they are getting a better deal. The straits time for obvious reasons do not reveal the pay received by the other airlines . SIA on the other hand is well aware that the pilots will not leave as the airline industry is turbulent at the best of times and there is no other secured employment other than SIA. Foreign pilots working for SIA are also attracted to Singapore as a home destination.

Dont' worry too Much
Historically this has been the situation over 3 decades. The last around went to the pilots after it went to arbitration and SIA was deeply embarrased by the statement made by the Chief pilot.

Based on the past experiences
SIA will present the most ridiculous terms as they know from the past. The final result is what SIA expects whether it goes court or not. SIA is owned by the govt. Old man or the Govt will step in if it does not go their way.


If all things fail there is still the old man
Twice the old man intervened. The first time was not well known. This was in the 80s. Devan was appointed to negotiate between the 2 parties. An angmo was the head of the pilots union. When everything failed and they were going on strike, old man asked devan to deliver a letter to the angmo at his house at Gymkhana Avenue. It was delivered by the bodyguard. All it stated it that the angmo will be deported in 24 hrs if things did not improve. Angmo readly agreed. Second time was the Ryan Goh affair.

 

[ManBearPig62]

Locke,

Can you quote your source wrt the above? A no point in the union-SQ exchanges did i see any mention anywhere of any kind of backdating for those who turn 62 before 2012. The negotiations are for those turning 62 after 2012. Before 2012, standard policy applies.

I am curious to know where you are coming up with this.

I think you are wasting your time, ask him for his source and he is twisting and turning. Repeating the same point over and over again.

I've seen this behaviour in other threads before.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear man

It's all in the press reporting n the facts




Locke

 

[blackreplica]

Dear Black

In 2011 the retirement age is 62. What happens to the pilots who turn 62 this year ? The disagreement between SQ and the Pilots is about their pay post retirement and how that is calculated .

Lets just say in 2012 the retirement age turns to 65. Well what happens to those who turn 62 in 2012 , no issue there as they continue working at the same pay till 65. What happens to those who turned 62 in 2011 or for that matter turned 62 in 2010 or 2009 ? Should they be employed back at the same pay or should they just fuck off and retire. They ARPA wants them back at almost the same pay. SQ is saying no fucking way.



Locke

Sorry Locke, all i see in that post are your own speculations, none of which are substantiated. I will say this again, there has been nothing mentioned by any parties, SQ, ALPA, MOM, or anyone else about the proposed re-employment being retroactive. Until i see hard evidence of what you say, i wont waste time trying to address it.

 

[blackreplica]

Dear man

It's all in the press reporting n the facts




Locke

Please do show it to me then

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Black

Lets debate what is known then and pin it all down.

a. The retirement age is currently at 62 in 2011 with it moving to 65 in 2012 within SQ. SQ is currently following the retirement laws and as such if it moves towards 65 it is highly probable they will move likwise.

b. The debate is about how post retirement pay is calculated between ARPA and SQ. post 62. That is how much u should be paid if you chose to work after the official retirement age. Note the choice to work after retirement age is by choice between willing buyer and seller.

c. Going by A and B those aged 61 and below in SQ have no problems next year as retirement age will be raised to 65 in line with Gov regs. The pay remains the same as they have not retired.

d. So the one's who are screwed are those who turn 62 this year and have to retire and it is those ALPA are protecting which I feel is unfair as born out by the US experience.


e. The possibility of D allowing in other retire pilots who were 62 6o etc etc is real because a benchmark has been set and is fair analysis.




Locke

 

[Ramseth]

I don't give a damn to SIA. Never fly SIA with a Singapore passport. I'm not biased towards SIA or Singapore. It's the same advice for citizens of other countries, never fly with your local carrier, especially flag carrier (except in big countries restricted domestic flights). Fly with a foreign carrier.

 

[kukubird58]

Back in the days, my kids would look forward to the tour of the cockpit whenever we were flying.
It would be the highlight of the flight for all kids onboard.

hahaha...just wondering were you flying first/business class or economy then.

 

[deforce]

Anyway, at the moment, SQ local pilots are given a reduced salary of 90% of their last drawn at 60 should they decide to continue on to 62.

What ALPA-S is fighting for is for pilots to be paid with no pay reduction till the time they retire. There is no back pay or whatever else. And there is no reference to the US system. Should a pilot be retired and he wants to come back, then yes, he will have to renegotiate his contract. The group that ALPA-S is concerned with is the group approaching 60 and 62.

SQ Cargo pilots have it even worse. They get paid $400 per day of work should they be rostered to fly. This was in the press before.

 

[ManBearPig62]

Dear Black

d. So the one's who are screwed are those who turn 62 this year and have to retire and it is those ALPA are protecting which I feel is unfair as born out by the US experience.

e. The possibility of D allowing in other retire pilots who were 62 6o etc etc is real because a benchmark has been set and is fair analysis.

There are about 1800 pilots working for SIA.

How many of them will be retiring this year at 62?

If you want to take a long shot and go for point e), how many of them are 62-65 this year?

You expect us to buy the argument that ALPA-S is going to so much trouble and will create a major conflict for something which only affects a minority of its members?

I'm out of this thread. Cya.

 

[scroobal]

Your usual neutral and not being bias qualification again. You really have no idea what it means. Being bias is not evil. It common sense to lean towards a certain thing or a way of life.

People take SIA because it has service that is among the best. However like all home based carriers it has a captive market and therefore charges hire here. It also carries a premium because of its service position.

If you cannot afford it best to take a cheap airline and there are many. SIA is basically for commercial and corporate travellers whose companies pay the bills.

Please do something about your neutral not bias error in understanding.

I don't give a damn to SIA. Never fly SIA with a Singapore passport. I'm not biased towards SIA or Singapore. It's the same advice for citizens of other countries, never fly with your local carrier, especially flag carrier (except in big countries restricted domestic flights). Fly with a foreign carrier.

 

[blackreplica]

Dear Black

d. So the one's who are screwed are those who turn 62 this year and have to retire and it is those ALPA are protecting which I feel is unfair as born out by the US experience.

e. The possibility of D allowing in other retire pilots who were 62 6o etc etc is real because a benchmark has been set and is fair analysis.

Locke

Just because it is possible doesn't mean it will happen. Or that the union is even interested in cases like this. Of the lengthy exchange which has been made public. No reference has been made to what you allude to.

Until evidence to prove that your (d) and (e) is something which is actually happening, there is no reason to debate it.

Like i have mentioned before, there has been nothing anywhere to even remotely indicate what you mention is even something they are trying to negotiate.

As far the material regarding this matter which I have read (and there is a lot of it). They are fighting for pilots turning 62 in 2012 onwards and no earlier. Even SIA HR's reply to Capt P James (head of ALPA-S) in ST Forum makes no mention of any kind of negotiation for pilots reaching 62 before 2012. If what you suggest was taking place, don't you think SIA would be screaming bloody murder? Yet they say nothing at all, restricting their response to policy post 2012. If you turn 62 now and airlines tells you to retire, as far as I am concerned you are shit out of luck, and the only set of rules which apply now is what has been in place since eons ago. From 2012 its a different ball game.

 

[blackreplica]

Might as throw in my 2 cents


Dont' worry too Much
Historically this has been the situation over 3 decades. The last around went to the pilots after it went to arbitration and SIA was deeply embarrased by the statement made by the Chief pilot.


If all things fail there is still the old man
Twice the old man intervened. The first time was not well known. This was in the 80s. Devan was appointed to negotiate between the 2 parties. An angmo was the head of the pilots union. When everything failed and they were going on strike, old man asked devan to deliver a letter to the angmo at his house at Gymkhana Avenue. It was delivered by the bodyguard. All it stated it that the angmo will be deported in 24 hrs if things did not improve. Angmo readly agreed. Second time was the Ryan Goh affair.

Scroo

Got any more info on the quoted sections. Always happy to learn a little history, excluding the ryan goh affair which i am quite familiar with

 

[Ramseth]

Your usual neutral and not being bias qualification again.

Re-read properly. My stance and advice has nothing to do with fares and service. Nothing to do with SIA being good, better, best or not. Just don't take your own local carrier unless no other choice, applying to all countries, carriers and nationalities. You didn't even bother to ask why and come out all guns blazing.

 

[scroobal]

Guns back in the holster. Tell us why then?

Re-read properly. My stance and advice has nothing to do with fares and service. Nothing to do with SIA being good, better, best or not. Just don't take your own local carrier unless no other choice, applying to all countries, carriers and nationalities. You didn't even bother to ask why and come out all guns blazing.