View Full Version : KA sacking their Captains
Shagtastic
19th Mar 2006, 21:36
I was scratching the head today wondering why KA would sack 2 of their Captains so easily for not comming to work on a day off, when these Captains have obviously passed the very Brittannia-esque and demanding KA upgrade course which therefore seems to imply all the resources put into these two chaps were irrelevant?
In sacking these two who had the right to their time off renders their upgrade course and KA standards meaningless, hypocritical at best.
Shags
Flap 5
20th Mar 2006, 14:23
I am somewhat surprised that these comments have only just arisen on pprune. Dragonair have been sacking experienced captains for some time now.
It is not just a case of sacking captains who are invaluable to the company in their general experience but also in sacking captains who are experienced in flying in China. To my knowledge none of the captains were sacked for any professional wrong doing in their work.
I can remember back in 1993 when we had Airbus instructors who were highly experienced captains but nevertheless had considerable difficulties operating in China. To call Dragonair management shortsighted in sacking experienced captains would be putting it mildly.
WaldoPepper
20th Mar 2006, 14:51
Shags,
The story is not as black and white as what you may have been told.
The captains were indeed on a day off, but a delay to their flight occured, forcing them to stay the night at the destination instead of returning home. The next day was meant to be a day off, and as currently KA pilots are "working to rule", they didn't want to work the next morning.
I guess this is the "grey" area of the situation. My last company contract stipulated that if days off were infringed due to delays en-route of an already started shift, then we had to finish, ie: bring the plane back.
I hope it all turns out well for them.
WP
Flap 5
20th Mar 2006, 15:58
When I was in Dragonair I would have flown the aircraft back because I know I would have got two days off subsequently. There were many occasions when I 'got the job done' in difficult circumstances in China. Those were the days of relatively good relations with crewing. However after the way I was treated by management at the end of my time with them, along with the way many other captains have been treated, I can see how the attitude has changed.
There was a time when pilots were willing to do that 'bit extra'. Not anymore by the looks of it.
Shagtastic
20th Mar 2006, 19:24
Waldopepper,
Thanks for pointing out the issue for me, I can see there are clearly two sides to the story.
But, it still doesn't seem right for the company to sack two of their highly trained and competent pilots when there must be other positve ways out of this. What's CRM for anyway? just pilots and cabin crew?
It still devalues their Captains in my view.
Blue Foot
Slapshot
22nd Mar 2006, 05:51
It makes one wonder what the "G" in G-Day stands for...:sad:
Baywatcher
22nd Mar 2006, 21:49
Hey Guys
Get a life and face reality. If you are down route and refuse to fly, whatever your rostered "day", you deserve to be sacked. If you don't like the job, move on.
vikena
22nd Mar 2006, 23:26
Baywatcher,
The likes of you diminishes general conditions of employment that pilots work to and also decreases the latitude and essence of command(reasonable in this case from the limited info here)
If you are a pilot maybe its time to hang up your gloves and pursue a profession more in line with your callsign.
v
Elroy Jettson
23rd Mar 2006, 00:05
Just a question, there was a union directive for contract compliance was there not? So these guys were following that directive when they stood themselves down? What support did they get from the union when they were sacked for following a union order? It is a genuine question, not muck racking. Is there in fact anything the union can do under your terms and conditions?
CAPT146
23rd Mar 2006, 03:25
Dragon pilots have been asked (By their union) not to contribute to public forums such as this until both pilots have had there jobs reinstated. One has had his sacking overturned and the union is still working hard on the 2nd case.
Karunch
23rd Mar 2006, 07:00
Baywatcher, you clearly display your ignorance. It is illegal to 'compel' an employee to work on a rest day under HK labour dept ordinance and as such the employer (KA) is liable to prosecution. As background information, this airline has a dismal record in the courts when it comes to dismissal of aircrew.
While you & your spineless ilk may flex at your employers whim, these two gentlemen did not, a trait so rarely found in professional aircrew these days. Cheers.
Flap 5
23rd Mar 2006, 09:00
Dragon pilots have been asked (By their union) not to contribute to public forums such as this until both pilots have had there jobs reinstated. One has had his sacking overturned and the union is still working hard on the 2nd case.
In fact they don't have a 'union'. It is an 'association'. Pedantic I know but it is an important point as they were unable to form a union.
pontius's pa
23rd Mar 2006, 12:35
Karunch
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Hong Kong Employment Ordinance, (it's on the Internet)
"Chap 4 Rest Days Holidays or Leave
An employee must not compel an employee to work on a rest day except in the event of a breakdown in machinery or plant or in ANY OTHER UNFORESEEN EMERGENCY" (my caps)
Perhaps check out the facts before dishing out the insults?
appalled
23rd Mar 2006, 12:50
Well pontious how would you define an unforseen emergency?
Would it be " a sudden state of danger, conflict etc requiring immediate action?" (Concise Oxford Dictionary).
A weather diversion hardly falls in to this category. In addition the event was not even unforseen. For over 2 hours the crew had been instructed to hold at destination awaiting a clearance that was never going to come. Ample time to replan for any ops setup with an ounce of ability.
Once they had diverted to NRT there was also still time for the company to position these individuals home on a commercial flight and send a new crew to replace them. The company chose not to do this thus precipitating this conflict.
As it happens both pilots have been re-instated with various punishments. One with loss of increments and another demoted to FO.
Elroy, the individuals have had the full support of the DPA and an inordinate amount of effort has gone towards resolving the situation without resorting to the courts.
nudger
23rd Mar 2006, 16:06
Glad to hear some form of resolution has been arrived at, albeit far from ideal! Well done to the DPA and all concerned.
Better job than the HKAOA managed.....:yuk:
Slapshot
23rd Mar 2006, 19:00
When one only has 8 days off in a month, some months only 7 days off and overtime damn near every month, I would think that the "G" or Guaranteed day off would be understood...
You are on a day off. Days off that are damn hard to come by at Dragonair. :suspect:
It's a pretty crappy way to treat a "valuable cockpit resource"...
Karunch
24th Mar 2006, 06:37
Well P's PA it appears a that a little more knowledge hardly puts you in a lofty position. As Appalled has clarified both 'unforeseen & 'emergency' for you perhaps you can pass this on to Mr Pontious himself, when he returns from his upstairs spanking.
pontius's pa
26th Mar 2006, 00:43
Appalled
You have completely missed the point of my post. I do not know if that should surprise me
Karunch
I am completely indifferent to this particular case, about which I know nothing other than this and one other thread which I presume refers to the same thing.
I was making a general observation about you insulting another poster using a half quoted law to justify your comment.
Kitsune
27th Mar 2006, 07:44
Back to the thread ladies......I see that KA are advertising for 747-400 Captains and F/Os in this mornings FI, replacements? :cool:
smallwing
27th Mar 2006, 07:54
G day in Dragonair is more like a Gold day..just as hard to come by from the company.
Good job to the pilots association in all their efforts to preserve peace.
Karunch
27th Mar 2006, 08:19
May I suggest that required reading before sending the application can be found at :
http://www.ifalpa.org/jobs/mar/06IND075%20Request%20for%20Mutual%20Assistance%20-%20Hong%20Kong.pdf (Ifalpa recruitment ban)
Legal action against KA employment for these positions is pending. Less than Atlas pay. Proceed with caution.
Kitsune
28th Mar 2006, 14:28
Oh, that'll make ALL the difference then........:rolleyes:
Karunch
29th Mar 2006, 02:10
Kitsune, I wasn't passing comment on the effectiveness of an Ifalpa ban, merely suggesting that applicants are stepping into not only an industrial minefield but a legal one also.
There is a strong possibility that any new hires for this operation will be de- hired by the end of the year as the legal complications become apparant to KA. The package offers less than the existing Eu based KA classic crew recieve (between 9 & 19%).
Don't resign just yet.
Kitsune
30th Mar 2006, 17:06
Perhaps a quick perusal of the latest post on the Fragrant Harbour thread CR Airways might shed some light..........(barrels and scrapings seem to spring to mind).....:rolleyes: