Cx vs. US

[Redflyin]

I was just trying to figure out what Cathay has against soooo many American pilots. I'm not trying to start a big conflict, but just honestly trying to understand the mentality.

My opinion is that it may have something to do with the Open Skies Policy. Or it could go back alot further than that. I'm not trying to call any pilot group better than any other and I could be way off base, but just looking for some other opinions.

Set me straight, please.

[CAPT146]

I understood it has something to do with HK CAD not recognizing the US ATPL and requires all pilots to sit every single exam before they will issue a licence. That obviously makes it very difficult for a US guy to get a Job base in Hong Kong.

[Redflyin]

I can understand that, but there is so much disdain for the American pilots during the interview process itself. I just don't get it. The interviews that are done in the US fall into two categories.....1. US Pilots and 2. US Pilots with an international background (ie European). The difference between these two interview scenerios is night and day.

[LSGG]

check your PM's

[junior_man]

HK CAD recognizes the US ATP. We didn't have to take any more writtens than the other guys. You might get a break on some of them if you had UK license, but that would be because the rules were based on UK rules, not some secret plot against Americans.

I never noticed or have experienced any problems with having a US background, nor have any of the other guys I knew.

As far as differences in the interviews, consider that someone who has already migrated from one continent to another may understand better the realities of moving somewhere a long way from home. Or at least have a better idea of the concept than a fella who has never left Cleveland. So, there may be some different questions asked of the two candidates.

[mayday911]

I understood it has something to do with HK CAD not recognizing the US ATPL and requires all pilots to sit every single exam before they will issue a licence. That obviously makes it very difficult for a US guy to get a Job base in Hong Kong.

The HKCAD recognizes the FAA ATP. I am a FAA ATP holder and was only required to sit 3 exams, which was less than course mates with some EU ATPLs. In addition to the 3 exams at the CAD I also had to take all of the -400 exams, but that is standard.

I am also 100% American, and I have not been treated with any disdain or disrespect (except maybe at the bar, but then again the Canadians get it pretty good as well...all in good fun of course) at all including the interview process. I think the problem is with the individual. Most Americans that I have spoken with would jump at the chance to fly for Cathay Pacific, if for nothing else the time off and starting pay, but almost none of them are willing to do what is required to get through the interview process. And that is what might get you some "disdain" as well....after all you have wasted their, and your own, time.

My opinion, humbly submitted,

Mayday

[Night Watch]

I just happened to be in New York recently, and there was a week long interview process taking place. So that's 5 interviews a day for five days..... One of the reasons that CX interviews get the sh!ts is, they travel across the other side of the planet to conduct these interviews, and it is not uncommon for only 10 or 15 of those 30 pilots to turn up!

On the other hand.... 30 out of 30 will turn up (with the odd no show) when interviews are done in Sydney, Joburg or in Europe.

Often when asked "how do you feel about the possibility of moving to Hong Kong in the future on the Pax fleet?" Americans will often reply "No.... i don't ever want to leave the US". Which is fine once you are in the company.... but a little arrogant during the interview. One must remember that CX is an Asian airline, and therefore one must approach the interview process accordingly.

(All this straight from the mouth of someone who does the interviews on a regular basis)

[CaptainGSR]

The majority of americans are not willing to relocate worldwide,and show up at the first interview unprepared. They read a few chapters of HTBG and give up because they really do not know how to study for a test to which they do not have the questions in advance.

Study hard and you can get the job. It is that simple. Cathay has nothing against you.

[Aussie]

Sounds like the US Atpls!

:D :D

Aussie

[junior_man]

Yes, not full of all that really practical info and questions like the CAD ones???

[Redflyin]

I had not just read HTBJ, but other tech pubs as well. Studied all of it intently to have a shot. One of the first questions was what did you study. What books exactly. From that point on the technical questions went in a completely different direction. Almost every question I answered was contested, even the ones that I nailed. Some questions completely irrelevant to the interview process, many meant to be argumentative.

Contrast that with friends that I have with a European background that actually got assistance in answering some of the questions. A slap on the back at the end of the interview asking 'where have you been for so long?'

I never said anything negative about Hong Kong or Asia and was completely open to relocating. But none of that seemed to matter. It was almost pre-conceived. I wasn't asking for a hand out, just an honest, fair shot to work at a great company.

RF

[hog tied]

I can understand that, but there is so much disdain for the American pilots during the interview process itself. I just don't get it. The interviews that are done in the US fall into two categories.....1. US Pilots and 2. US Pilots with an international background (ie European). The difference between these two interview scenerios is night and day.
They may show disdain for US pilots in the interview, but it's a good primer for what is to come. Many C&T's will assume the typical yank to be less competent than the average bear. Perception makes for a difficult reality for many.

CX could be such a great job, it's too bad that fellow pilots allow the naughty schoolchild intimidation and rule to be an accepted part of life. This has nothing to do with management, we do it to ourselves. Everyone among us, including many very senior in the C&T staff complain about the system. Then they go out and destroy their young with an ERAS.

This ain't the proverbial mission to Mars, and airlines in the US don't have airplanes falling out of the sky because they don't treat it as such. Let's lighten up on each other and recognise those who like to make life difficult here as nothing more than cowards with delicate egos.

I don't think things will change here, and more often than not an American will find themself on a difficult road. But, then again, so is everyone else!

[VVJM265]

I have yet to find the time to sit and write a coherent recap of my Phase I interview which was the last week in June in SF. However, I did want to reply to this thread and state that I saw nothing negative or "anti U.S." in the interview.

Both gentlemen was very professional and cordial. I suspect that the fact that 80% of my flight time has been flown overseas, we lived in Germany when I was a kid, as an adult we have been stationed in HI & twice in Italy and are very open to moving to HK for a few years played in my favor. I did get the technical questions, including lots on the P-3 prop system, which I hadn't even reviewed but managed to drag out of my brain. Also got asked about the differences between the motors on the Metroliner (previous aircraft) and the Kingair (current aircraft), which I thought was interesting. I will say I studied my a$$ off for about 3 solid weeks prior, including HTBJ & Ace the...Interview. Looks like it all paid off, got the email for Part II the end of next month.

But again, my experience was entirely positive in the first interview.

Best of luck all,
265

[Pointer]

RedFlyin;

My Question is simple, what were you told to study when they contacted you BEFORE your Initial interview?

It's my strong feeling that just as All the other Applicants (worldwide) you were told either by lettre or by Phone that it is important that you study the HTBJ in Depth....

It's not so much a Knowledge test as more a devotion test, if you are devoted enough you WILL have read it front till back.

why did you elect to not study that book?

:yuk: there are so many americans joining Cathay, they are thinking of opening a McDonalds in CX City. :{ (just joking guy's)

Pointer :E

[VVJM265]

RedFlyin;

My Question is simple, what were you told to study when they contacted you BEFORE your Initial interview?

It's my strong feeling that just as All the other Applicants (worldwide) you were told either by lettre or by Phone that it is important that you study the HTBJ in Depth....

It's not so much a Knowledge test as more a devotion test, if you are devoted enough you WILL have read it front till back.

why did you elect to not study that book?

:yuk: there are so many americans joining Cathay, they are thinking of opening a McDonalds in CX City. :{ (just joking guy's)

Pointer :E

As far as what the company told me to study, here is what was in my initial invite letter:

"The interview comprises a thirty minute technical multi-choice questionnaire and an hour's interview of both personal and technical questions."

"As Cathay Pacific Airways maintains a high technical standard, we recommend you review the technical aspects of your ATPL theory prior to attending the interview."


That's it. All other specific recommendations came from this board, Flight Info, or the AirInc article last Aug. There is a wealth of info out there, from the FAA's web site, to HTBJ, Aero for Naval Aviators, etc. Just order a few books from www.pilotmall.com (http://www.pilotmall.com) and start studying.

Best of luck,
265

[Redflyin]

I did study and re-read HTBJ. Along with Ace the Technical Pilot Interview, Fly the Wing, ATP questions banks, various interview prep books and info on Hong Kong itself. Had the complete fleet and company history down. When I told them the type of things that I had used to prep, they elected to hardly ask me any questions about those subjects.

No questions about Cathay history or current fleet. No questions about current powerplants or thrust ratings.
Only one 747 related question, which I nailed.

Most of the questions that I knew I got right were still contested. Another American applicant was challenged on why he got a college degree and if that made him a better pilot. When he said 'I think it might make an individual more well rounded', they immediately asked him "so you think we do it wrong by not requiring a degree". How is that not confrontational and pre-conceived? How is it that even releviant?

VVJ makes my point for me. International experience with some form of international background. In no way am I saying he wasn't prepared, or an excellent candidate, just pointing out what seems to be and obvious trend to me. By the way, congrats on the second interview.

I know that I studied just as hard and got different interview. Maybe no one else is willing to say it, but I am. Good luck to all.

RF

[boxjockey]

I went through both interviews, and can honestly say there was no anti-american sentiment. During the second interview, they made it a point to make themselves feel comfortable about my motivations and commitment to CX and HKG. I'm truly sorry to hear about your experiences. Perhaps they were trying to rattle your cage. They certainly did during my final interview.

box

[electricjetjock]

Redflyin:hmm:

I think you are perhaps being a little naive. Did you think that just by being there and having studied you would get a job offer. They obviously wanted to see how you could handle pressure. They would also want to see what your character was like ie would they be able to sit beside you for 10 hours on a longhaul flight - will you fit in!

You are making a mountain out of a molehill concerning the other candidate over his degree. It is again standard interview technique to see how people react. Will they stand up for themselves or just bend with the wind because that is what they think that the interviewer wants to hear.

Again with your tech answers I am not sure you have it right as the interviewers will not normally say whether you have the question correct or not. If they think you have scant knowledge or are just regurgitating information without an understanding of the subject matter, then expect probing questions to follow. Best advice there for people is to admit they are not sure and stop digging!! Further questions may come to see if the knowledge is there, but in the dim and distant past.

The interviewers fully understand that this can be a life changing / career progression event for most of the candidates and they will give the candidates every opportunity to shine. However, Cathay is not a free lunch and you have to be motivated, capable and more importantly fit in.

I speak from first hand knowledge of the process and interviewing in LA and NYC. There is NO bias, I just think that some candidates do not expect to the kind of interview process that takes place.:sad:

[mayday911]

Both of my interviews were more relaxed than a Great Lakes interview. Does that mean that Great Lakes is anti-American?

Maybe they just didn't think that you fit in. There are alot of Americans roaming the halls of Cathay City, and more to come with the planned -400ERFs on the way.

Mayday

[mpflis]

RF,

Just speaking from my own personal experience, I can say that I have yet to feel ANY anti-american sentiment at Cathay. I interviewed in June of last year and again in November, and was offered a position after additional medical tests were completed. I read and reread....and reread all of the study material to prepare for these career interviews, and was fortunate to be have been successful with the interview process. I am also american, with no international flying experience. I'm sorry to hear that you were not selected; however, this is not an uncommon story. I have many friends, some of which are from the EU and Canada, who have been unsuccessful with both the first and second interviews. Some had paid for interview prep, many paid for sim time. In the end, they were not selected. This has no bearing on being american, canadian, european, or australian. Having been through the training, and met many other successful candidates, I can assure you that everyone has similar stories of mates, and colleagues that were not offered a position. In my second interview group, only myself and another canadian were selected, while two canadians and two european's were not. In the following group, only another american and canadian. This amounts to 4 people out of 14. The only difference between these people and you, is they have not writted stories about anti-canadian, or anti-european sentiment. Cathay is an extremely diverse company with approximately 80 nationalities on the flight deck, and they have hired more american's recently than EVER before. This will continue with the additional 747ERF purchases, and their expansion plans.

[Redflyin]

Hey guys,

I would like to thank all of you for some very insightful input. Congrats to all that have made it, and I have been really impressed with the level of professionalism in all of the responses. It is refreshing to see such an open discussion without things turning ugly like so many other boards. This topic was never meant to pit one nationality against any other, and I am glad no one took it that way. There are great pilots from around the globe, and I wish I could have met even more of you through Cathay. Maybe next time. Cheers

RF

[Captain_Morgan]

Hello everyone,

I am curious about Cathay Pacific and how they are overall as a company to work for in general.

I should also add that I am currently a student and working towards my ATPL here in the US. I am currently attending Embry-Riddle University and UTAH Valley State College concurrently, and I will be getting (2) B.S. degrees in aeronautical science, one is theoretical and the other is a practical degree, however both with aviation emphasis. I should be graduating in June 2007, additionally with Honors and a 3.85-3.95 G.P.A

As for flight school I am attending an Ab Initio training program via Rainbow Air Academy in Long Beach, CA. With this program I will get 1500+ hrs of which 500hrs is Multi-Turbo-Prop time, of course the T-Prop time is completed via Ameriflight which as I know is questionable experience depending on which aircraft you fly, however, I am pulling for the Metroliner. Regardless though I will get my 1500hrs and all the ratings up too my FAA-ATPL. Oh I also failed to mention I will have around 200hrs extra (SIC) Multi T-Prop time in the King Air B200, so I will actually have around 1700+ hours when I start shooting my resume around. Additionally I should have about 10-15hrs Dual Jet time in a L-29... "Not really applicable though I guess"

I hope to have everything completed sometime around September-December 2007 and be ready to begin the perils of the application process.

So now for what I am looking for from some of you experts and working pilots here is...."HELP" and of course some good insight to the playing field.

I am quite frankly only interested in working for Foreign Carriers, unless I can get in with Fed-Ex, UPS or ABX.... Why. Because the US economy and job market is currently very poor, and our economy is not showing any signs of near or long-term improvement. Our air carriers are not treating their pilots as they need to i.e. skilled professionals who's training & skill is comparable to that of doctors. Comparably our pay scales both entry & long-term "if you don't get furloughed" are falling behind, taxes are too high, and the cost of living vs. income potential is pathetic. I guess to sum it up very briefly currently in the US there are way to many variables, and our air carrier industry truly needs to be subsidized in which our government can not afford to do, or so they say.

So anyone who can provide me with a good idea of what I can expect and which carriers I should look into that would be a good choice for my level of experience at the time of application, again around 1700hrs. 500-700 T-Prop mostly (SIC), 800-1000hrs (PIC) in your basic GA aircraft, and BS degree with honors.

I am very interested in Cathay Pacific as I have heard many good things about their pay scales and benefit packages, additionally Asia is an up and coming economy, also Air Emirates, Lufthansa, KLM, and any other foreign carriers which could be recommended. Any information or advice will be greatly appreciated and well noted...!

With my school I also have a good chance of getting hired with EVA Air, of course via their cargo division first, so anyone with info about EVA beyond the basic stuff which I know would be great.

Another question I have about Cathay Pacific is should I go for the S/O slot or the F/O slot being I think my experience will qualify for the F/O, but the S/O is in passenger vs. the F/O is cargo, do you still have to move through cargo if you go the S/O route.??

Well sorry for the long winded post but I am looking for some good info so I thought I should be thorough in my explanation of my situation and desires. I am a ways off from getting my wings wet, but I want to choose the right direction and be prepared when I do..

Thanks For Your Input or Advice..!!

[wondering]

@ Captain Morgan

you could start your research here:

http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/careers/flying

[Captain_Morgan]

Thanks but I have already been all over their site, and additionally through many of the chat boards.. I would like to actually talk to a few pilots currently working for or who have worked for Cathay and get some good insight from the inside... But thanks for your help none the less.. But I have reviewed all the basics from their website...

[wondering]

No offense, but judging from your F/O slot vs S/O slot question, I figured you did not read CX´s requirements.
All Second Officer applicants must meet the following minimum requirements:
1. An ICAO Airline Transport Pilot's License (ATPL) (obtained without exemptions) or ICAO Commercial Pilot's License (CPL) (obtained without exemptions) with passes in all ATPL ground examinations
2. A Valid Multi-Engine Instrument Rating
3. A minimum of 1000 hours fixed wing (preference will be given to applicants with turbine or multi-engine experience)
4. Experience commensurate with age
5. A current Class One Medical
6. Fluent spoken & written English
All First Officer applicants must meet the following minimum requirements:
1. An ICAO Airline Transport Pilot's License (ATPL)
2. A minimum of 1000 hours in one of the following categories:
a. Airline Jet Transport
b. Command Turbo Prop (MAUW greater than 20,000 Kgs)
c. High Performance Military Jet
d. Corporate Jet Command
3. A current Class One Medical
4. Fluent spoken & written English
5. Experience commensurate with age
Good Luck :ok:

[dhoonk]

Another American applicant was challenged on why he got a college degree and if that made him a better pilot. When he said 'I think it might make an individual more well rounded', they immediately asked him "so you think we do it wrong by not requiring a degree". How is that not confrontational and pre-conceived? How is it that even releviant?

I was asked similar (i.e. irrelevant) questions as well. So were many of my friends. If I were to make a guess as to why they asked such questions, I would say that it was to see how the candidate expressed himself or herself. The actual opinion expressed would not have been important.

Anyhow, good luck with the future, RF.

[betaboy]

Actually, I think the correct answer would be that you didn't think a degree made you a better person, nor "more well rounded," nor a better pilot, because the truth is, it doesn't.

If one feels that he is "more well rounded" because he has a degree, does that mean that he feels that those that he works with who don't have one are less well rounded? I think it's a valid interview question.

That said, there are plenty of people here who have a degree or two.

[rampvet]

C'mon, Beta Boy, there is no single "correct answer" to the question of whether a candidate should be required to hold a university degree.
As with most of the personal questions at the CX interviews, it's more a test to see how you can express yourself and support your opinions. And to see if you get rattled when they challenge your answers!

I'm glad I put in my time at uni. Earning my degree did help me become a more "well-rounded" person, but I wouldn't make it a requirement for the CX job because I've worked with plenty of people who are good guys and fine pilots who only have a high school diploma.

There are many non-aviation skills, experiences, and qualifications that will make one's CV stand out, and a university degree is one of these.

(And believe me, I KNOW there are also millions of idiots out there who have earned university degrees!)

[betaboy]

That's my point. People are "more well rounded" because of how they chose to react to the opportunities that presented themselves to them in life, not specifically because they went to university.

Although I am sure you are right that they are interested in seeing that candidates can express themselves well in their responses, I'm sure they are also interested in screening out any egotistic attitudes.

I enjoyed my time at uni too. I learned some things, and gained some very valuable and marketable skills, but I definitely do not think that this in any way makes me a better pilot.



... What was this thread about again?

[Triangle Man]

Gents, having asked CX recruiters during my interviews about the general demographics of those pilots recruited by CX, I was not surprised to learn that a major hurdle for American pilots is their attitude toward the rest of the world. Specifically, many of them have never left the US, nor have desire to do so. Futher, quite a few of them don't even know where Hong Kong is (..... more than one US applicant has answered that HK in the southern hemisphere, or off the coast of Africa). I am generalising in saying that many people of the Commonwealth regard Americans as insular and ignorant, and this perception (whether right or wrong), is reinforced by such applicants above. CX is a company with strong Commonweath roots and an overwhelmingly Commonwealth pilot body, and hence this perception of Americans endures.

Flying for CX has traditionally meant relocating to Hong Kong, the epicentre of an energetic and crazy, but otherwise bizarre and undeveloped (by Western standards) Asia. To relocate and integrate successfully, a pilot joining CX has not just wanted to fly, but they have specifically wanted to fly for CX, which also means that they have wanted to relocate and join the Asian madness. My perception is that American pilots do not necessarily want to fly for CX, they just want to fly and don't have too many other options at present. Unfortunately, this attitude does not really sit well with those who have specifically chosen CX (for whatever reason, be it lifestyle, money, or the Asia experience), and the company is full of pilots who have specifically chosen CX.

Of course, please excuse my generalisations as I know there are numerous Yanks who actually do want to work for CX alone (and not all Commonwealth expats want live in HK), but I'd suggest that those who are CX focused but receive a hard time at interview may be considered "collateral damage" for the rest of the aplicants who just want the well-paying job.

TM.