Rumour has it that the Adelaide Instructors that were screwed by CX out of their seniority and expat pay have had a win. The 3 CX fathers that took their cause on, have had a BIG win against the DFO and CX. They are just about to start a course in Adelaide and will be in CX soon. They were back paid 3 years salary and their seniority was also back dated to the day they went to Adelaide as instructors 3 years ago. Well done to the 3 Dads on getting things done. Looks as though they will join as expat F/O's. This has cost CX big bucks..millions

While, if this is true, I'm happy these guys got what they had originally agreed to, I don't see how 3 years' seniority buys them an F/O slot. Upgrades are running at 4 years plus at the moment.

So if a LEP joins CX check and training does he get expat terms after 3 years? :}

Three cheers to the young men for standing against the company to get what they are contractually entitled to! Perhaps our pilot group can do the same???

We have this little portion of our CoS that addresses positioning on CPA aircraft and boarding priority 1B/F. I'm pretty sure sitting on the freighter does not satisfy that requirement, yet many of us are rostered to do it regularly.

Will we learn from our 3 newest pilots or stick with what hasn't been working?

Absolutely disgraceful, cowardly and plainly dishonest behaviour by our DFO and his cohorts (otherwise known as 'the CX Family'). These young men were misled outrageously and any fair minded person, let alone their ultimate Boss, would not have allowed this to happen at all - let alone get this far.
Well done to the Dads.

And why did their dads have to take care of it?

Wasn't it something the AOA should have been doing?

Anyway, good for them! :D

Were / are they in the AOA? Honest question.

That might help explain some of it...

At least they now know what CX is like. Better they know and make the decision to get out now, rather than join and only after a while realise the kind of company this is!

Isn't it a shame that before the guys even start their career proper, their employer is out to screw them over.

Why would you even join. I'd just flip 'em the bird and go elsewhere.

CX really are a disgraceful company.

Fcuk CX. I hope that low a55 RH rots in hell.

Screw them for all you can get and move on.

yes it was and the AOA did. the three and several others are members.

Absolutely disgraceful colonial white expat racism paid for by A scale daddies,I know the local ex Adelaide cadets know the instructor ruse in a flying school is a joke.All of whom are not HK Chinese is clearly racist.I got expat terms when I came here with 8000+ hours and 6 years jet command time, not a few circuits in a bloody flying school!

Next time pay negotiations come up let's all call our Dads!!! If this is what 3 Dads can accomplish imagine what we could do with 2500 of 'em!

Well done to the Young Chaps and the "Experienced" helpers!:ok:

RH/TT et al: invertebrates... honouring a Contract, requires errr... Honour.

Two Dads, PB & BS are NOT members of the AOA.

May I ask which court did they win their case?

If this is true, then can I file a case against the company for the breach of my contract? If CX gave instructor cadets seniority when they are still an instructor in ADL, and not operating a CX aircraft, not being pay by CX, not on CX payroll, not even working for CX. Then these instructors are clearly violating our seniority system.

So if above is true, then CX will have breach my contract with regards to:

1) Violation of our seniority system. (ie: How seniority are assigned? Assigning seniority to pilot not on CX payroll, and not being pay by CX, and not even working for CX)
2) Method of Entry to become a CX pilot? (DEFO, DESO, Cadet)
3) CX crew operating CX aircraft, so if they are CX crew, then clearly they are not operating CX aircraft while they are training for a third party organization with no shareholdings relations to CX?

Anyway, I am at a cross road here, I am extremely happy that these instructor cadets won their case. I think it is about time someone stuck up for themselves against the company. So good for them.

However, by hiring them and assigning them seniority out of order, they pretty much by-pass 3 years worth of CX pilots (real S/O) in terms of seniority. And these are our junior S/O who are actually working in a CX aircraft, while these instructors are doing something that our contract does not allow them to do (ie: Earning a CX seniority but not flying CX aircraft and not on CX payroll and not officially employ by CX). This is a much bigger deal as than just some instructor cadets, this is about a violation of our seniority system.

So just a thought for everyone who is cheering! I am at a cross road here, I don't know if you guys can see my point of view here.

They did in fact get seniority numbers when they signed the contract with CX that also entitled them to expat terms. CX a while later said sorry, no longer the deal, local terms and no seniority until you join as a Cadet SO. They had already been instructing in ADL for some time. Yes it is an odd situation but there was a route to join CX this way, which they did. CX then changed the terms after the fact.

I got my seniority number in ADL, whilst flying FTA aircraft, one month before stepping foot in HKG.

The more factual events are......CX in typical style attempted to use the Racial Discrimination Ordinance to welch out of the commitment given to approx a dozen instructors employed in a period when retaining instructors in Adelaide was near impossible. A special deal was created to give the College some stability and to reward the instructors for their 3 year commitment to Adelaide with seniority and DOJ dates relating to their start dates in ADL. Some of the instructors were actually on CX courses and opted for the more generous expat terms being offered which made sense at the time and delayed their move to HKG. Had they stayed on those courses they probably would have been FO's now.

Some time after being entrenched in the instructing job and very vunerable CX attempted to back peddle on the deal removing significant signed agreements. What is important is the contracts were signed in Australia and not HKG with its weak industrial protection of which CX has enjoyed forever. A few but not the majority of these instructors did have fathers who were pilots in CX. Some of them lobbied very strongly to the DFO and CEO about the injustices of what CX was attempting.

Previous offers by CX to fix the issue have been far short of the mark and at the end of the day the Instructors should get every single item promised including , seniority and DOJ. My understanding is they would have to do a certain amount of SO time to complete particular modules as an SO even if they did have FO seniority when they eventually arrive.

Many of , if not all of the group of instructors all joined the AOA (unlike some of the fathers which I will never understand) and the AOA has been in constant contact with the instructors on a weekly basis and a lot of effort has been given to them in turning this back around.

There has not been a court case win as such however some sort of settlement has been offered and I know the instructors are being very tight lipped about it, and details are scant. I would hope the AOA publishes an update to detail the latest information on this issue.

I may be wrong and events since then may have changed, but I believe they did not get the full win they wanted. While their seniority has been recognised, they will not be on expat terms.

I heard that the solution the SK replacement is proposing is to employ them in HKG, once in HKG give them 12 weeks pay and a termination letter.

Well if that happens I hope that everyone has the balls to stand behind them.

They did in fact get seniority numbers when they signed the contract with CX that also entitled them to expat terms. CX a while later said sorry, no longer the deal, local terms and no seniority until you join as a Cadet SO. They had already been instructing in ADL for some time. Yes it is an odd situation but there was a route to join CX this way, which they did. CX then changed the terms after the fact.

I got my seniority number in ADL, whilst flying FTA aircraft, one month before stepping foot in HKG.

Yes, all DESO get our seniority while we are in ADL because we are hired as DESO and we have officially sign our contract with CX before heading down to ADL. We are sent down to ADL for our conversion course, which is allowed under our contract. (Contractually, CX can send anyone anywhere for training purposes, if they are under going training for CX operational needs, look under company policy for training and contact details on training.)

However the difference between instructors cadets and DESO are the fact that they are cadets. If you talk to any cadets (I have talk to a few of them), they do not get their seniority until they return to Hong Kong. So by giving seniority to instructor cadets while they are still in ADL, they are by-passing other CX pilot who are genuinely operating a CX aircraft under the HK AOC. Also, these instructors cadet are not on CX payroll, so if they are given seniority while they are instructing in ADL, they are breaching the contract of every cadets and DESO and DEFO who joined CX while these instructors are still instructing in ADL. So is this fair to those cadets entry pilot, DESO or DEFO? I don't think so.


To make it clear for everyone, if you read our contract:

Under Section 3: Terms of Employment

3.1


An Officer will serve the Company by operating any aircraft as defined in the Company’s Air Operator’s Certificate in any part of the world and on any of the routes served by the Company, including the operation of special or chartered flights as required by the Company, and perform such other duties in the air and/or on the ground that relate to the Company’s flight operations.

So unless I am mistaken, when did our AOC allow our pilot to operate aircraft own and registers by Flight Training Adelaide? Once these Instructors Cadets are hired as Instructors in ADL, they are no longer under CX training in Adelaide. They are working as instructors, so they are no longer the CX trainee. They are an employee of Flight Training Adelaide.




As for sending our pilots to work at another company, there is an exception: Under 3.2


3.2




Notwithstanding 3.1 and subject to mutual agreement between the Company and the Officer, the Company may require a Company designated Check and Training Officer to serve in a Check and Training capacity with any associated company or other airline and the Officer will serve such associated company or other airline save that the Company will remain responsible to the Officer for such payments as he or she may be entitled to in respect of his or her service whether rendered to the Company or to any associated company or other airline. The Salary, allowances, benefits and Conditions of Service of such an Officer will be in accordance with the existing provisions of the agreement between the Officer and the Company. The Company will remain responsible to the Officer for an ongoing Risk Assessment of the Flying Standards of the associated company or other airline for the duration of the Check and Training Assignment.

So unless they are Check and Training Officer, the company can send them to another company to work for training purposes, however, there is a catch, they must to be under CX payroll.



But as we all know, these instructors cadets are NOT under CX payroll, CX are not paying them under contractual terms in our COS. Flight Training Adelaide is paying their payroll. So hence, they can not be officially hired by the company, or else they are in breach of our contract.

Also, if CX would like to argue that they are consider Check and Trainer at CX. Then it open a big cans of worms, there are HKCAD requirements to be met, company training requirements in HK, CAD approval etc. Therefore, I don't think CX will attempt to call the instructors cadet, CX Check and Training Officer.



Finally as for seniority, if you read Section 5 of our contact and Appendix 2 of our contract regarding "The Aircrew Seniority List", it spell out very clearly on how seniority can be assigned, and they DO NOT include entry via instructor cadets and it DOES NOT allow such by-pass of seniority in the contract promised to them by CX.



5.1. The Aircrew Seniority List was established in accordance with the terms and conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of these Conditions of Service.




Appendix 2:

THE AIRCREW SENIORITY LIST
With effect from 1st December 1998, a common seniority list for all pilots (“the Aircrew Seniority List”) was established as follows:


All Senior Captains, Captains and Captains on Probation were assigned a seniority number equivalent to their position on the Aircrew Seniority List - Captains.
All Senior First Officers, First Officers and Junior First Officers were assigned a seniority number at the end of the list in 1 above equivalent to their position on the Aircrew Command Seniority List.
All Direct Entry Second Officers, and Second Officers who joined the Company through the Cadet Pilot Programme and who have completed a minimum of eighteen (18) months’ service, were assigned a seniority number at the end of the list in 2 above equivalent to their position on the Second Officer Seniority List.
Second Officers who joined the Company through the Cadet Pilot Programme and who had not completed eighteen (18) months’ service on 1st December 1998 will be assigned a seniority number after completing eighteen (18) months’ service. Where such Officers have the same date of joining the older Officer will receive the more senior number.

Thereafter, seniority of Officers joining the Company will be established in accordance with 5.3 of these Conditions of Service.




So this is why I am at a cross road, I feel sorry for these instructors cadets because the company take advantaged of them, but I also feel sorry for the normal cadets entry pilot, DESO and even DEFO who are being cheated by these instructors cadets by-passing their seniority, and all the while HKAOA is not doing anything about it. In fact the HKAOA is helping these instructors cadets (who are not eligible to be a HKAOA member), instead of protecting our own pilot seniority system as per our contact.

These instructors cadets shouldn't be hired in their current form in the first place, but the company without consulting with anyone unilaterally hired them, and then cancelled their benefits. So should we and the HKAOA correct what was originally wrong to being with? If we correct this and give these instructors cadets their original contracted seniority, then we are probably breaching the contract / seniority of about 3-400 CX pilots (cadets entry, DEFO [probably no DESO at that point]).

So I hope everyone will understand why I am at a cross road here.

Get all the guys affected together to approach the AOA and at least get a D&G started, do it yourself without the AOA if they dont help.

CXHK.

Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory bro.:ok:
Keep looking out for number one.. its the CX way:yuk:

CXHK,

Allow me to uncross the roads for you. I do NOT think your case for a D&G is anywhere near as strong as you seem to believe, despite your CoS references. FOP is going to handle this as they see fit under the advice of their lawyers, and nothing you do is going to change that. My recommendation is to keep your chin tucked in rather than sticking your head above the parapet, especially if you are an SO or FO.

I must question your motivations, however. Are you really upset about a few pilots that got a one-off, "good deal"? Were you upset when they joined? Why did you not raise your D&G then? How much are they going to delay your career progression by? A week or two...

These guys could easily have accepted the same crap deal you did when you joined as a CEP, and their seniority would be same as they are fighting for now. Does it really matter whether they were eating sandwiches on widebodies or instructing at the FTA? I believe their flying skills are far better off having spent three years instructing in Adelaide as opposed to making bad radio calls, doing elementary math on the CFP, or spinning the heading bug over the Pacific. I certainly think they should get full expat benefits if that was agreed to contractually, regardless of the RDO which is being grossly misinterpreted and misused by the company.

If the company does bring them to Hong Kong only to sack them, then we will know for sure that nothing has changed since 2001. The HKAOA actually attempted to eliminate the companies ability to fire without cause during the SLS negotiations in 2009, but NR adamantly refused. Pretty sad if you really think about it...

the question is, are they employed outside the contract? if so then cxhk has every right to be p1ssed. to me it seems they were.

They have a valid contract. They could have moved up to HK years ago but they decided to accept the terms and conditions offered which required them to remain in ADL for a few years of instruction. The quid pro quo was expat terms.

cxhk - they have seniority - and if you read COS you will see that CX can second you. There are precedents to 'employed but seconded' without it being Check and Training.

There is no breach of contract for them to be currently employed and seconded. The breach of contract will be if CX doesn't honour its side of the contract. So far that hasn't happened.

CXHK,

Allow me to uncross the roads for you. I do NOT think your case for a D&G is anywhere near as strong as you seem to believe, despite your CoS references. FOP is going to handle this as they see fit under the advice of their lawyers, and nothing you do is going to change that. My recommendation is to keep your chin tucked in rather than sticking your head above the parapet, especially if you are an SO or FO.

I must question your motivations, however. Are you really upset about a few pilots that got a one-off, "good deal"? Were you upset when they joined? Why did you not raise your D&G then? How much are they going to delay your career progression by? A week or two...

These guys could easily have accepted the same crap deal you did when you joined as a CEP, and their seniority would be same as they are fighting for now. Does it really matter whether they were eating sandwiches on widebodies or instructing at the FTA? I believe their flying skills are far better off having spent three years instructing in Adelaide as opposed to making bad radio calls, doing elementary math on the CFP, or spinning the heading bug over the Pacific. I certainly think they should get full expat benefits if that was agreed to contractually, regardless of the RDO which is being grossly misinterpreted and misused by the company.

If the company does bring them to Hong Kong only to sack them, then we will know for sure that nothing has changed since 2001. The HKAOA actually attempted to eliminate the companies ability to fire without cause during the SLS negotiations in 2009, but NR adamantly refused. Pretty sad if you really think about it...

I think you don't understand my point. At no point was I arguing the expat package they are supposed to get. If the company has agree to give them expat package on their contract. Good, I am all in support of them getting their expat package. However what I am NOT in support of them was their seniority, because it clearly breach our contract. I truly believe under our current contract (please have a look at your COS carefully guys), the company should have NEVER offer seniority when these instructors are still working for FTA in ADL. The company can offer whatever package to them, that is not my problem, my problem is the way they are by-passing our seniority system and it set another bad precedent again.

Cxorcist,

I must complete disagree with your reply to cxhk. Just because we are talking about 12 people out of 2700 does not remove the fact that any breach of contract - wrt seniority- is still a breach.

It is this whole set-up where different people get different terms that causes in-house fighting amongst us and makes management jump for joy.

I personally know an SO that could potentially be affected by this breach of seniority - regardless if it is 1 or 2 weeks. Whilst I am not his dad, I wonder if I can cause a similar song and dance. Oopps I'm not an A-Scale big dick.

Congrats CX management :D even though you failed on not honoring your promise with these FIs you still come out as winners. You have us fighting again.

Betpump and CXHK,

I still don't see a clear breach of contract based on the CoS. That said, I do understand what you are referring to and why you see a possible breach. More importantly however, do you think you will be able to prove your point in a grievance proceeding or labour tribunal? I don't think so. Without knowing what is written in the instructors contract, I think the company will get their way here.

That said, I understand operating on principle regardless of the numbers. I just don't see this as a black and white issue based on the CoS. For comparison, freighter PXing is very straightforward contractually, yet we are still struggling to get that portion of the CoS honored by the company.

Smell what I'm stepping in???

A couple of rumours on the street - yes rumors on a rumour network so don't bite my head off!

Firstly the original promise in terms of seniority for the FIs was never meant to be upheld as it is a complete breach- see cxhk post. It was just a quick fix, wink of the eye, nod of the head and hope for the best tactic by the company to settle a small but nagging problem of instability within the flight school in terms of not holding onto FIs and the effect this would have on the cadet programme.

Secondly, an FI during the recent uncertainty left their post as an FI and joined the short course (6 months cadet programme) as they didn't want to work a couple more years for the same package as the guys/gals they were training and who would join CX well before they finished their FI placement.

Ouch- the benefit of a crystal ball!

Secondly, an FI during the recent uncertainty left their post as an FI and joined the short course (6 months cadet programme) as they didn't want to work a couple more years for the same package as the guys/gals they were training and who would join CX well before they finished their FI placement.
So they'll even jump at the new conditions too?:ugh:

The more I think about this, the more I realise that CX got exactly the result they wanted.

Think about it.

The money lost from the back dated seniority is chump change for CX. Just look at our 'leaders' recent bonuses. The back dated seniority has the added effect of sowing dissension among the new SO's: Cadets against FTA guys. Just what we need as the AOA destroys itself (yet again) through its own internal politics. So now we have another angle to the divide and conquer strategy.

The real prize I think was the no expat package. This is where the real money is and CX won big time by these guys not getting it. CX played the long game on this one and won.

Of the past 33 posts, hands up those who have actually recently spoken to one of the instructors or their Dads. Put your hands down if what you have written is second-hand, or what you overheard in " The Gay Bar".

There are some very different and opposing versions here, you all can't be right.

I have spoken to one of the individuals within the last week.

So your position, attained from first hand info, is that, contrary to the originating post, the instructors are no longer being offered expat terms. Two questions;

1. Has the non-payment of expat terms been accepted by all the cadet instructors (is this a done deal)?

2. What is their seniority date, the date they commenced their initial course or the date they started Instructor duties?

Obviously, anyone can answer the questions, but please preface your answer with "I have spoken directly with a Cadet Instructor" or "I am a trolling sock puppet". That way we will all know if you are talking Shiite or not.

The only breach of contract was from Cx. It is as simple as that. Cx made a comitment that they then did not respect. If Cx did not give them an empty promise back then, these instructors would have been way ahead of you in seniority!

Good on you Bruno for standing up to the bully and defeating him.

The rest of you that feel so done in, grow up and look at the big picture here!

Stop being so selfish and hope one day that when , not if, but when Cx tries to bully you into signing away something, that you do have some one like Bruno that is willing to put his career on the line for your sake.

Because I can guarantee you that when the time to stand up and be counted comes, you will be the first to run away.

eerr.... Have you actually spoken to Bruno?

To answer your questions LG. I only spoke with one of the fathers (although I did speak with one of the other ones a few months ago about the same matter) recently and so can only speak for his son. I didn't ask for specifics, because it was not the time and place and honestly, I didn't want to be pushing into something that was obviously a sensitive subject for his family. So I don't have dates, copies of contracts etc. What I do know is that he said his son will not be on expat terms and was considering the offer of the back dated seniority.

Betpump5 Nice and interesting post UNTIL your stupid A Scale remark. It is now hard to take your posts seriously. Funny how people undermine themselves.:D

Hey- that A scale remark was supposed to be a compliment!

I thought we left the lack of honor/ integrity to CX.
These positions were advertised as, join CX as an s/o,
iso flying the 744/777/340 you will be seconded to ADL to work as a flight instructor, accruing SO seniority. 6mth prior to JFO upgrade you would do SO course so that you would upgrade to JFO in order, on the same COS as if you just started in HK from scratch.
Regardless of what the exact details were, this was the intent and all parties were aware of it. Hence why these guys already have a seniority number and are in the AOA.
So many times CX change the rules after the contract is signed and that is what we all work towards to stop.

The guys have 100% met their side of the contract....and whilst there has been no breach by CX, so far, they have been warned for the last 18months that CX fully intends to renege on the contract. You can imagine how this would affect the 18 guys. The 19th guy folded about 10months ago and signed away his contractual rights.
The other 18 are HKAOA members as they are employed by CX, but seconded.
And yes I am in frequent communication with them.

NC,

I am relieved that these guys have someone like you looking out for them. They are very lucky. Couldn't think of anyone I'd rather have in my corner. Thanks for providing clarity with your posts on this issue.

Shame on those who would even consider throwing these guys under the bus. Your disgraceful posts are representative of the worst attributes all too common amongst Cathay pilots.

A reputable source as always.

Would you be kind enough to answer the questions regarding the "done deal" and the proposed seniority date. Clarification of those two facts should draw this somewhat tawdry thread to a close.

The 19th guy folded about 10months ago and signed away his contractual rights.

That has got to hurt :(

welcome back NC, great to have informed reliable input back onto the site!

What do you mean CX has not breached their contract?

In the same post you say that CX told them 18 months ago that they did not intend to honor the contract...that is a breach of contract!!!

You are the exact reason why a strong union at Cx will never exist, because you only look after your self and cannot see that this is a good thing for the whole of the pilot body.

Hey Frogman,
Let's say you and I sign a contract saying I will give you $50,000 on 31st December 2013 for a second hand car you have. Now let's say that I tell you today(verbally) that I don't intend to honour that contract...there is no actual breach until we get to the end of 2013 and I fail to pay. Now let's say that from now until the end of 2013 I try to argue that there was no contract - it was all a figment of your imagination! Now you have an idea of how management have approached the issue.
(yes the intent to breach is there - but it is a theoretical breach until the terms are not physically met - it is problematical to pursue a theoretical breach - we have sought advice on this)

Liam G - some negotiations are still in progress so I would rather not comment on what has and has not been offered.

For SOs who think the IPs will be jumping seniority let me make this very clear...they are on the seniority list. They have reserved positions - they have had Deputy FTMs shake their hands and welcome them to CX years ago - they were then seconded back to FTA. If they had not accepted over 3 years of instruction at FTA they would already be in their third year of being SOs on the line. There is no contractual breach in terms of seniority, as long as management honour the contracts!

Frogman, Your out of line and so disrespectful and so wrong about someone whom has spent years working for the benefit of the entire CX pilot group. You should delete your foul mouthed name calling or I suggest the moderator deletes it and rubs you off the forum

I second that motion...!

Number Cruncher's endless work, devotion and contribution to our cause is unimpeachable.

Only a cur would would use the language you used in your last post! Your post speaks more to why we find ourselves in the position we do than anything else I've seen in some time.

Thanks for explaining matters in your typical lucid manner. Understand totally the reasons why you can give no details, but would point out to quite a few posters on this thread that celebrations could be somewhat premature. Equally, fears and dilemmas regarding seniority are presently unfounded.

-rant mode "on".

Whilst I understand the metaphor regarding buying the car, I prefer the analogy that a group of mechanics spend 3 years fixing your car, because the metaphoric wheels ave fallen off, on the understanding of payment upon completion. Nearing completion of the car you express delight in their workmanship, but announce that you have changed your mind and there will be no payment forthcoming. To placate the mechanics (and their fathers and their 1700 colleagues) you rather lamely point to an irrelevant RDO and then when pressed further, shamelessly mutter that "we didn't have a valid contract because I had my fingers crossed behind my back".

At any stage during the 3 years you could say to the mechanics, sorry I got it wrong, here is compensation. But being a person of "quality" you wait until near the end of the project and give them a sign or be fired ultimatum. One mechanic looks at his personal circumstances and signs, the others fight on.

-rant made "off"
-
I shall humbly fall into line behind Raven and third the motion. Whatever have the Romans done for us...eh?

Frogman, step outside and give your head a wobble... There's a good chap.

Ok I've cleaned up my last post, which remains.

I just cannot understand on how some of you feel done in, when these ex instructors are the real victims here.

How can you even contemplate about complaining about 18 guys who were promised seniority three years ago who were clearly screwed by Cx.

At some stage here we need to stand back and look at the big picture not your individual little picture.

The argument if it is a breach or not is all bull! What would you do or expect to happen if you were one of the instructors in question.

Would you not expect the same treatment?

Ok I've cleaned up my last post, which remains.

I just cannot understand on how some of you feel done in, when these ex instructors are the real victims here.

How can you even contemplate about complaining about 18 guys who were promised seniority three years ago who were clearly screwed by Cx.

At some stage here we need to stand back and look at the big picture not your individual little picture.

The argument if it is a breach or not is all bull! What would you do or expect to happen if you were one of the instructors in question.

Would you not expect the same treatment?


if you do a deal with the devil.........These guys were offered something outside of the contract so no tears from me

Hey Jizz,
the guys were not offered anything outside of their contract. Their contract is slightly different from A scale, Freighter, DEFO or LEP contracts. But did a DEFO accept something outside of the contract just because it was slightly different from everyone else's contract?

The 18 guys have done nothing wrong nor taken any super deal- the jobs were offered worldwide.

The situation is black and white - don't look for any wrong or misdoing amongst the IPs.
cheers
NC

Too, too, too funny!

iCadets upset that their job has been de-valued with respect to seniority! And no one told you this kind of thing would happen? HA! I think it's sad for the greater number of CX pilots suffering the degradation of their airline and careers but precisely what these foolish iCadets ignorantly asked for and contributed to.

You did the deal with the devil. Just think.... You have potentially till you're 65 years of age all the while at a continually depreciating lifestyle, and career terms and conditions. Again, all completely what you agreed to and condoned by begging for, lining up for, defending and participating in this farce.

Well done to the Adelaide guys.

The only reason he has taken on his master is because this time his pact with the devil didn't quite work his way. As usual the only reason these guys stand up is for there own selfish reasons -this time their poor little boys. Would they have stood up for an anonymous member of the pilot body - no way.

That sums up a large number of people here though and the same reason people work G days, don't go on strike for greater issues affecting others etc...At the end of the day, we are all looking after ourselves. We do this because we know no-one else will. Bit of a catch22 really.

I call it ignorance and a lack of disciplne rather than a catch22, geh065.

But did a DEFO accept something outside of the contract just because it was slightly different from everyone else's contract?

Sorry NC, as much as I don't like it, DFOs are in the cos. so no, they didn't.

Hey, Masta of Disasta. Speak for yourself. Paul B is well liked by many people. I get tired of those who come on this forum and think it appropriate to anonymously slander others. The term 'coward' suffices.

Masta. My hunch is your problems are more related to your personality (comes across perfectly clearly in your posts) than it is to any perceived duplicity on the part of the checker. What you really need to do is work on doing your job properly. Then the checker won't have anything negative to put in your report will he?

I might be a mediocre pilot (aren't we all in CX) but tell it to me in person
So we see you had a bad check. Does it matter whether he said it to your face or put it in the report? At the end of the day your performance was ordinary. Man up.

I'm with master on this one

The instructors have not yet won against CX. Slosar is supposed to be sorting it out, but nothing has happened yet.

I am disappointed by some of the post on this thread by those claiming they have been screwed by the agreement CX has with the Instructors.

To me, the real issue here is that the company asked a bunch of guys to 'help the company out' by agreeing to continue instructing longer and delaying their start onto the jets. In exchange for 'helping the company out' they would get seniority and a package including housing. Dick Tall then decided he would honor the contract. He then used a range of despicable intimidation tactics to force these guys onto new, lesser conditions.

The instructors have a contract. The company should honor it.

It is sad that young are fighting the fight the old are too gutless to.

It is sad that young are fighting the fight the old are too gutless to.

Isn't it their 'old' daddys who are fighting the fight?

I heard that the solution the SK replacement is proposing is to employ them in HKG, once in HKG give them 12 weeks pay and a termination letter.

It will be a "loss of confidence" letter...delivered by DHL. :mad:

It will be a "loss of confidence" letter...delivered by DHL.

If there's only 8 of them, then the star chamber might be on the hunt for another 41, to bring the total up to the magical 49.

yes, sort of... but the AOA is paying the legal bills.

but the AOA is paying the legal bills.

ok, I'm in the AOA, pay my dues, and I'm 'old'. So it actually is us old guys standing up for the youngins.

Thanks for clearing it up.