Rumour has it that Cathay has worked out the only way to crew all the new heavy metal is to increase the retirement age to 68.........................Seems the head of IATA is helping to make it happen.................

Rumour is this time the AOA and all pilots, regardless of COS, will stick together and will enact strict contract compliance until those adversely affected by unilateral offers of yet another new COS receive appropriate and worthwhile compensation for the further destruction of their career progress and decreased earnings, without having to work 13 extra years.

Good rumour, huh!

Nice try but the majority are going at about 60-62 so they could make the retirement age 100 and it would make no difference.

I don' t ever fly overtime (744), nor most of the guys I talk to, apart from maybe a couple of hours.
This alleged crewing problem everybody seems to talk about might be a bit inflated..

I am on the Bus. 90 hours each month. B777 guys are hitting their 900 hour limits. There is a shortage.

711
Obviously didn't ask me 10-15/month rostered for the last 8 months apart from a leave month.

My second month with OT in 12. Usually 70 hrs. (B744)

IATA don't make those kind of decisions

IATA don't make those kind of decisions

but they certainly influence them.

"the majority are going at about 60-62??? wtf??
The majority will be going at 55 as per their CoS

"the majority are going at about 60-62??? wtf??
The majority will be going at 55 as per their CoS


my cos now says 65 and that's when I'll be leaving you little punk! Unless course they extended it again:ok:

I'm not working a day over 70! I swear!!!

Probably end up "as long as you hold a class one medical"

Does anyone know the scientifically proven age you decide you like flying through the night with no sleep and permanently feeling like a zombie...retire at 65? If they keep up this roster till then I'd die the next day. (mind you I'd have four bars by then and define my existence by them aye Jizz)

Hi Jizz.

Let me guess... You fall into the group that;
A) Signed with CoS 08 that bennifitted many at the expense of a few.
B) Voted for the pay rise that had something for the majority and SFA for a few.
And
C) Bitched ceaselessly about the profit share that bennifitted the majority but had little in it for others.

See the hypocrisy here by any chance? If not, you're not alone. It's quite a unique group of self serving individuals that make up the Cathay Pacific Team

Hi Progress,

Let me guess...you fall into the group that:

a) voluntarily agreed to join on inferior conditions
b) haven't done anything to attempt to improve conditions
c) most likely don't belong to the AOA (but will take any benefits they negotiate)

See the hypocrisy here by any chance? If not, you're not alone. It's quite a unique group of self serving individuals that make up the Cathay Pacific Team

a) Yes
b) Yes
c) Yes

No hypocrisy there. Very consistent.

Wrong. It's a sad fact but the majority, and its growing, are on CoS08 with age 65. AAR

Sad bunch...
I get it... Old guys need to feel like they're king or whatever.. God only knows! New guys not so much.
I know not directed at me...
a) voluntarily agreed to join on inferior conditions
b) haven't done anything to attempt to improve conditions
c) most likely don't belong to the AOA (but will take any benefits they negotiate)

But answers from my side..
No (well B scale but A scale was years previous)
I like to think I've done my bit.. Support the union, sign what I'm asked to and write in when required.. I'm up for whatever is out forward to improve our conditions.
Yep strong AOA supporter... What else I got? Tennis with RH gonna help me?

And an aside.... Personally I signed and have maintained a contract that has me retiring at age 55 whilst I don't really blame anyone that works longer, I do pity them! Get a life! Have a go at me for saying this... I'm dumbfounded by the amount of guys I fly with that have 'a nice big house' they don't own or at least partly own c/o Cathay (and moan they cant afford to stop working!) whilst in the mean time I like many others that don't care about the status, have bought property that Cathay is paying for and plan to leave as per my marridge certificate and Cathay Pacific's COS, one in death do us part... The other till I'm 55!!. I am saving for my retirement and hoping like hell I leave with the same wife while I can still attend my children's school camps, balls, sports days, uni graduation and 21st without some idiots telling me that no sorry cannot your the only one on reserve, o day, g day, leave, long service leave, maternity leave, or wankers cramp so you gotta do it!

Age 55 was always to young to 'retire'. Even if you have the money, what exactly do you do at 55. Most of us like our jobs, and enjoy for the most part going to work. If someone wants to keep working....guess what, it's none of your business why they choose to do so. As a matter of fact, most of the 'young' set who seem to feel they have a right to state when others should retire are actually helping establish a mindset whereupon people resent the implication they are not welcome after a working career, and resolve to stay as long as possible. At the end of the day, people have a right to work to whatever retirement age is applicable. Any argument to the contrary is futile. I suspect many of the junior members with a strong opinion on the matter will 'surprisingly' change their tune when they get into their late 40's...

Ok maybe I'll go to 75 if they promise me a simulator job or a base!😁

Tornado,

That would be true, were it not for the contract everyone (before) signed that provided a certain rate of progression in pay and benefits through seniority-based system up to the maximum age of 55. No different than all those guys who joined the army or air force with a contract for a certain number of years, or any other contract. Nobody said you have to "retire" at 55: That is just when the contract you signed expires. You can work anywhere else you wish, but you don't get to benefit from the progression brought on by the contract (others ahead of you had to retire at 55) and then complain that it's not fair that you have to go then too.

Perhaps those who think working as long as they wish in a seniority-based career should lose 10 yrs of seniority progression when they turn 55, and go back to the pay and benefits (and rank, and requests, and leave, etc.) they could hold after losing 10 years of seniority, as has effectively happened to those who had 10 years (or so) added to their progression with RA65....then we'll see how much they love going to work still at age 56-65?

Iron,

So all those B scalers who have signed COS 08 should just throw their hands up and retire at the original 55 years of age also...? Or just the A scalers...? I suppose the new joiners who have joined without housing should then not accept housing if the company offers it in the future...? The fact is everyone will take an improvement if it's offered. Additionally, to suggest that 'some' pilots should not take an extension in working years, yet other 'should' be able to take advantage of it is basically you playing 'god' (no pun intended in your case!) with the determination of such categories. Who decides who should and who shouldn't. The fact is that people in all age and seniority groups have taken advantage of the extension to age 65. The fact is that an individual has a right to work until whatever age they can no longer do the job. You (or I) do not have the right to determine someone else's working longevity. The matte is settled at this point....there is no going back. In fact, I suspect that quite soon it will be illegal to force someone to stop working based on age. Cat 1 Medical will be the determining factor. As an aside to your argument. If you had joined an airline back in the US/Canada/Europe, you would be facing exactly the same issue. They have all incorporated the age 65 rule. But I suppose it's only CX pilots who should supposedly show some altruism and deny themselves the additional economic security of the extra decade of work.

Tornado Ali.....well said totally agree. It was an issue which was almost unsolvable and because of entrenched and divided views the company knew it and once again unilaterally imposed a fix to suit themselves with massive cost savings straight into the bottom line.

The money spent on bypass pay and productivity gains from increased retirement age should have been bundled up and used for increasing increments particularly for first officers and the cutting salaries based on age, should have been stopped in its tracks.

However CX got what they wanted.....increased retirement age and by pass pay being funded by age discrimination pay cuts to those over 55 and increments cutting out way too early. Our inability (mainly our younger crew) to recognize that it was inevitable RA 55 was history has led us to kicking an own goal or two.

In the mean time I am curious to know ...is bypass pay still being paid out to folks on a base who have not accepted a command in Hong Kong?

That's why bypass pay exists.

The rest I deleted due to extreme boredom with moronic comebacks like the one below.

..ahh yes, the old 'im too bored to check' brush off. The usual resort of those who can't properly support their argument. As I said, those who are working at most North American airlines are now working to 65. It's pretty simple really.....even for you.

Ok ok! 73 with no housing and a comuting roster in economy class would do!:{

Old men that can't accept there is an end to everything..

The list of these pathetic fools is endless : frail African dictators, aging premier league footballer yobs, the pope, Jeremy Clarkson, and now the 65 year old pilots who want to go on, of course in the left hand seat with all the benefits, seniority etc.

A social life orbiting around The Stauntons ( HKG base) or the Gay Bar ( not HKG based),no friends,no money even sometimes, estranged wife and a humiliated domestic helper at home, sweating when the visibility falls below 2000m, what a way to end a "career"...:yuk:

...or, someone who takes pride in their profession, enjoys the lifestyle, still enjoys the challenge, and likes a reason to get up in the morning (and doesn't give a sh*t what the skaterboarders think).

With you 100%. Perfectly put.

As someone else pointed out, you're not a professional: You're an employee.

The lifestyle? It's great, except that part about working, and so often being surrounded by people you'd rather not be surrounded by instead of those who matter (assuming you matter to anyone).

If you regularly or frequently feel challenged, you're got some serious issues with reality. Once every 10 years doesn't make up for the extreme nothingness of every other flight.

No other reason to get up in the morning? No wonder you'd rather work than live.

Nobody cares what skateboarders think. I'd venture to say nobody really cares what you think, either.

Enjoy your next awesome take off and landing! Note: It will be exactly like everyone else's 1000000 others that day, and every day. Woo hoo!

Come on, man...oh, I get it now, you're just joking about all that! Got me, funny guy!

As someone else pointed out, you're not a professional: You're an employee.

The lifestyle? It's great, except that part about working, and so often being surrounded by people you'd rather not be surrounded by instead of those who matter (assuming you matter to anyone).

If you regularly or frequently feel challenged, you're got some serious issues with reality. Once every 10 years doesn't make up for the extreme nothingness of every other flight.

No other reason to get up in the morning? No wonder you'd rather work than live.

Nobody cares what skateboarders think. I'd venture to say nobody really cares what you think, either.

Enjoy your next awesome take off and landing! Note: It will be exactly like everyone else's 1000000 others that day, and every day. Woo hoo!

Come on, man...oh, I get it now, you're just joking about all that! Got me, funny guy!

mmmm, you have just jinxed yourself buddy. I hope I don't fly with you for the next decade. Im guessing your boring flights are going to start to get really interesting. I hope you are up for it?

Ok, ok! 75 and I'll do it on FO pay :ok:

I was thinking after 65 I could "reverse mortgage" my career by paying them to come to work. The longer they let me work, the higher the rate. That way they can cover the hull loss when I finally take my last breath, unless of course that few hundred hour cadet FO can save the day.

cxorcist, you get the Reply of the Month award! :D

I think Frogman is a close 2nd.

b.

My final offer.
73, comuting roster in EConomy class ( I'll pay half!)
No housing,
I'll only do night flight.
You must allow my grand child who is 15 to join the cadet program, which of course he will pay for!:D
Of course I'll accept FO wages due to my reduced mental capacity and experience. :ok:

All these posts just reflect the CRM issues in this company ,..it's not easy to find another pilot body with so many overestimated (old) individuals like in CX - although quite limited in their operating skills and leadership

So now young pilots like Climbout and his buddies, who everyone knows are the real stick and rudder aviators in our midst, are calling the senior pilots of this Company..."overestimated (old)...and quite limited in their operating skills and leadership..."

Ha, Ha, Ha! What is this...irony??

This latest slur from a group of loudmouths with experience levels inversely proportional to their ego and who are part of a dwindling number of poorly experienced "pilots" to accept the ever diminishing and watered down benefits package offered by Cathay.

What's more, only after Cathay lowered...and lowered....and lowered....what was being offered.

And now we are reaching out to third world countries in an attempt to recruit even more "high quality" recruits like Climbout and his buddies...?

Never mind those "overestimated" pilots they hired twenty years ago.....I guess that when it comes to skillful pilots, there is no relationship between skill level and flying hours in a logbook. To the bean counters, and obviously pilots like Climbout, less is more!

Climbout....bravo! That the most astute observation I have seen!:ok::D:D::D

cxorcist...not only will the 300 hour cadet F/O save the day, he will do so with the finese and elan that will completely floor you that you will find yourself staring at the sandals of good old St Pete.

Here we go again..........

I'll stay as long as I damn well 'need to' and I'd expect that in 20 years you'll do the same thing.

I'm sick to death of these young wet behind the Ears types moaning about their senior peers, just nick off and wait ya turn like I had to do for around 13 years as an FO.........

:mad:

Climbout - I don't think it is hard at all to find what you are referring to as "old and overestimated". Just about every airline in the world has guys working to 65, and all of them approaching that age who are honest with themselves will admit that their best days are behind them. That does not mean they cannot still be great captains and try to stuff a few more dollars under the mattress for retirement. That said, we do have some CRM issues at CX.

Gerago - Are you willing to bet 300+ lives on that claim of yours when the typhoon flags are flying in the Fragrant Harbour? I'm not so confident having seen quite a few low-time cadet FOs at the wheel. They don't have a 10kt crosswind limit for no reason.

I see the N-sync hair gelled skateboard set have come out of their box once again, interestingly just prior to the start of the typhoon season when their lack of skill set comes to the fore. Perhaps it is because we haven't had a good blow for a few years that they feel empowered. Perhaps it is a case of amnesia, but I have yet to forget the stuttered radio calls from the right hand seat as "motormouth" got out of his comfort zone. He was then found in the gaybar that same night boasting how we got in but others failed. Tool.
Anyone can fly an ILS in good wx, but that don't make you Yeager.

Yeah right. Just waited for the quality argument. Like, I can't retire, the airline needs my experience and superior skills, it is not about me and my boring life of nothing that awaits me when I have to return my personality( =uniform), I just feel so responsible to continue to save these hundreds of lives..

Geriatric fools, that 's what you are. I would say " get a life" normally, but clearly it is a bit late for that, isn't it?

We have the most experienced Senior First Officers on the planet,for christs sake.

Yes maybe if you forget UA, BA, AA, QF NZ, LH, AF etc we might just have the most experienced FO's on the Planet!!!

I wasn't a Captain all my life you know, basically 15 years in the right seat, 8 of that as a Senior FO relief command on the 400 'waiting' for my turn. So I'm sorry to burst your 'must have it now' bubble but you are going to have to LIVE WITH IT.:* you ain't the first.

The reason you only spent 8 years as RQ FO was because of expansion and RA55.

Today's RQ FO's will be there much longer now that you're a captain with RA65, and probable reductions. I know you don't care and you think you're great and special and entitled. Don't ask yourself why you drink beer without the rest of the crew, except for the sycophants and intimidated youngsters.

I think your Iron fell out of the Fire mate.:D

Have you heard of ASL? That little fiasco cost me and others 100 command slots, not to mention CX started to extend guys beyond 55 on contract. Yes been there, sent the postcard bud. :ok:
15 years and 3 different Airlines before I managed the seniority for the left seat. You didn't see me bitching about my poor rotten life...:ugh:

me me me.

Is that the theme song of some of our FO's? Just settle down, you'll get your turn soon enough.

I will admit to cringing each time I see some of our 65+ Sim instructors that still need to work!!

Oh, and the guys I had drinks and dinner with last week sure looked like my fellow crew members!! :ok:

I've never said ''my experience is needed".........not once, didn't even imply it.


However as a relatively youngish chap I've still got many years ahead of me. All I'm trying to do is point out that not all of us walked into the left seat, we mostly had to walk the yards first. :ok:

It took me quite a few years and nearly 40 years old to achieve command and you ain't getting rid of me yet!!


Exactly how many of our experienced FO's had Jet commands before CX? Not too many I'd venture. I know a few SO's and FO's in Qantas that had Jet Commands before QF, would you like to switch places with them now???

711,

You sound like a brat! Could you really be 46? If so, you are an embarrassment to our generation. Please stop.

The extension from RA 55 to RA 65 did cost me and hundreds of FO's in CX millions. Fact. The golden generation did nothing to compensate us, absolutely nothing. And now, as this wasn't enough, RA even beyond 65.

I say : shame on you, CXorcist,and on all your fellow greedy, selfish, cynical friends.
Be once honest to yourself and admit the burden on Senior First Officers. Arguing with taifuns closing in and only the most senior of captains able to fight bravely thru it is just so cynical and ridiculous, and you know it.Seeing a colleague, left hand seat experience and thousands of heavy jet time as a brat shows your true colours.

Yawn...... :confused:

Mate I'm a B scaler and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination rich......

I took hits over the years like you have, been there done that. :{

You are not the first ones to be screwed over by CX and you won't be the last. :oh:

What about the fact that you can now stay up to 10 more years at probably the top increment on the CN scale??? That is worth millions back to you potentially.
( 17 Million HKD approx, without PF OR housing OR 13th month )
Surely that must help a bit???

nipicker, let me guess, you got your command after 5 ish years in CX?
The lack of honesty in this thread is appaling.

711, that's where you should probably be working. You castigate others for taking advantage of something that YOU yourself will take advantage of when you can. Hypocrite of the highest order. Now, pour me my 'Big Gulp'....

It is not about accepting extension, of course that is legit. But to argue it is about superior skills needed, that stupid brat first officers do not have, albeit the fact that the senior first officers in this company are the most experienced in the industry is outrageous and dishonest.

No 711 I didn't. If you care to re read my previous posts.

I took nearly 9 years as an FO in CX to get CN.
15 years as an FO in total.
21 years as a Professional Pilot to get CN on anything bigger than a PA 31.:p

Screwed by ASL and other events in my life that moved the goal posts!!!

You are not the first to have the playing field adjusted in their career!!

So, accept it as Shit happens and move on OR FIND ANOTHER JOB. :ok:

Oh and I have quite a few friends that are SFO's and they are some of the best operators I've ever had the privilege of working with. :ok: they will deserve their commands when they happen. I don't hear them bitching about those of us that just happened to be a little older and got here first!!

Personally,I can't understand what all the fuss is about.Wether someone decides to (legitametly) take advantage of working a few extra years (& why not!) all this stupid talk of " get a life" etc- usually from someone who obviously is either in the wrong job or with the wrong outfit( they think).
Where ,in aviation, does it stipulate that you should " give way" to younger chaps? Do doctors & lawyers etc do the same? No bloody way! Its " dog eat dog" I' m afraid so get used to it!!
Anyway, "flak-jacket on" xxx

Again and again and again:

Is NOT about accepting an offer to work longer ( at least until 65),

it is about the INSULTING,CYNICAL, and RIDICOLOUS argument, that it is in the interest of safety to work longer because senior officers in CX are not ready ( after 20 years plus in the industry..) For the love of Jesus Christ..:mad:

711. get-a-life.com have a read

great debating skills, water check.from oz?

Yes, the vast majority of our senior first officers are top notch....

But not all of them....some, as can be seen on this thread, like to talk about their self-perceived skills and pound their chest.

Most of our skippers are top blokes. But a small number can give the rest a bad name.

Bottom line is....until you aquire the appropriate experience (in a big airplane...not a tiny one) and until you demonstrate your competence by successfully completing the command course (in a big airplane...not a tiny one) your crosswind limt remains 10kts/15 kts.

Nuff said......

Bottom line is....until you aquire the appropriate experience (in a big airplane...not a tiny one) and until you demonstrate your competence by successfully completing the command course (in a big airplane...not a tiny one) your crosswind limt remains 10kts/15 kts.

Actually I was told once that the reason the x-wind limit for SFOs is in place is purely because CX opted for the cheaper insurance, which stipulated those limitations. It's not because CX thinks SFOs aren't up to it.

Human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots.
Li G, Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski JG, Rebok GW.
Source
Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. ghli@<hidden>
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Pilot errors are recognized as a contributing factor in as many as 80% of aviation crashes. Experimental studies using flight simulators indicate that due to decreased working memory capacity, older pilots are outperformed by their younger counterparts in communication tasks and flight summary scores.
OBJECTIVE:
This study examines age-related differences in crash circumstances and pilot errors in a sample of pilots who flew commuter aircraft or air taxis and who were involved in airplane or helicopter crashes.
METHODS:
A historical cohort of 3306 pilots who in 1987 flew commuter aircraft or air taxis and were 45-54 yr of age was constructed using the Federal Aviation Administration's airmen information system. Crash records of the study subjects for the years 1983-1997 were obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) by matching name and date of birth. NTSB's investigation reports were reviewed to identify pilot errors and other contributing factors. Comparisons of crash circumstances and human factors were made between pilots aged 40-49 yr and pilots aged 50-63 yr.
RESULTS:
A total of 165 crash records were studied, with 52% of these crashes involving pilots aged 50-63 yr. Crash circumstances, such as time and location of crash, type and phase of flight, and weather conditions, were similar between the two age groups. Pilot error was a contributing factor in 73% of the crashes involving younger pilots and in 69% of the crashes involving older pilots (p = 0.50). Age-related differences in the pattern of pilot errors were statistically insignificant. Overall, 23% of pilot errors were attributable to inattentiveness, 20% to flawed decisions, 18% to mishandled aircraft kinetics, and 18% to mishandled wind/runway conditions.
CONCLUSIONS:
Neither crash circumstances nor the prevalence and patterns of pilot errors appear to change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the 50s and early 60s.

711 has a valid point. Just because you are 60 and have plenty of experience under your belt, you're no safer than a 40 year old pilot.

Flap 10

So...the crosswind limit is in place is due to cheaper insurance rates......doesn't that spell it out for you?

The reason the insurance actuaries and the insurance companies
place a premium on experience level should then be obvious to you..should it not?

I can remember, when as a new F/O on the Classic, the left seater keeping his hands near the yoke during my first of couple of years. Looking back now, I can appreciate his apprehension. Until I learned how to land the airplane in a crosswind with wings level and on the centerline....and until I could project the required level of comfort through demonstrated skill....and not by self proclamation...they were right to be careful.

The limits are in place until one upgrades...fom JFO to F/O...to Captain. No amount of stamping your feet will ever change that.

There is a direct actuarial link between lack of experience and aviation mishaps. As there is a link in every profession between experience and how well one performs his job. Raw skills and basic talent are not limited to experience levels. But then raw skill and basic talent are only a small part of what makes a skilled and experienced professional. Which is why in every profession the experienced and members of that profession can attract the higher pay.

As in most things....money talks.

So...the crosswind limit is in place is due to cheaper insurance rates......doesn't that spell it out for you?

The reason the insurance actuaries and the insurance companies
place a premium on experience level should then be obvious to you..should it not?


errr..all it does Raven is it puts a blanket requirement not taking into account years of experience or anything else. Are you telling me a year one Captain is better at x-wind landings than a 12 year SFO??? Are you magically bestowed with superior x-wind skills once you go through a command course??? In fact as it happens so often, many go though the entire command course without ever experiencing any significant x-winds. There is absolutely nothing in the command syllabus that states you have to demonstrate a max x-wind landing to the trainer/checker. You would be released after your 4 bar into a typhoon and have no limits.....doesn't that spell it out for you?

You're trying to justify your point by constantly comparing a brand new inexperienced JFO to an experienced captain. We are comparing experienced SFOs to experienced captains, so lets keep the debate on the same playing field.

There is a direct actuarial link between lack of experience and aviation misshaps.

I hardly call a 10-12 year SFO as having lack of experience. In fact at Cathay the biggest blunders were made by the most senior captains, whilst the most talked about successful emergency landing was by a fairly new captain.....what does that tell you?

All 711 is rightly trying to say is that you can't use the excuse of experience for justifying your stay beyond 55. It's a poor and invalid argument. Frankly if you wish to stay to 65 and fly middle of the night BOMs, then by all means fill your boots. Personally I am out at 55, life is too short, as we were sadly reminded so recently.

How long Frogman???

b.

Raven,

I am an SFO, based. I do 1-2 landings a month. Do you really think I need more "experience" like this? And, by the way, I have close to 10 000 hrs total. Do you think THAT is enough? Clown.
10 kts crosswind limit? I have seen so many captains f@<hidden> up a FIVE knot crosswind, you got to be joking..:mad:

I'm waiting to hear if my grand son was given the job! He is 15 and his experience is that he knows me! Plus he flew once in economy class!...I think he will be ok with the cross wind limit!

Not a day past 75!

Well, this thread has really taken a turn for the worse. I'm embarrassed by so many of the comments. I really hope other airline's pilots don't come on here just to get a good laugh at the silly CX pilots. Can't we all just be satisfied with our station in life and get on with it? You want the 30 knot crosswind? By all means, be my guest... I prefer day VMC with nil wind. Oh, and hot (female) cabin crews while we're at it.

Back on topic, I think anyone who thinks pilots should be allowed to fly a day past 65 is nuts. I don't care if you can pass a first class medical. We all know that requirement is a joke. The cockpit is "No Place for Old Men." 65 is OLD. My father turned 65 last year. He was a great pilot and is in excellent health for his age. Based on the way he now drives a car, I can tell you without hesitation that he absolutely should not be flying commercial airplanes.

But I'm sure all you older chaps on here are different, right?

Until I learned how to land the airplane in a crosswind with wings level and on the centerline....and until I could project the required level of comfort through demonstrated skill....and not by self proclamation...they were right to be careful

After so many many years in command, I am still not able to have my wings perfectly level in strong crosswind landings. I get on the centreline about 98% of the time, but wings level...er, maybe 50% of the time?

I think a lot of pilots have a really unbelievable high opinion of the capabilities but during my years of training and checking, I have seen all sort of stuff ups by the so called very best. Oh, the urban myths an legends we have to put up with...............sigh!

"Bottom line is....until you aquire the appropriate experience (in a big airplane...not a tiny one) and until you demonstrate your competence by successfully completing the command course (in a big airplane...not a tiny one) your crosswind limt remains 10kts/15 kts."

Raven

Sorry to burst your bubble of self-grandeur but I am a SFO Relief Commander with CX and my crosswind limit is certainly 30kts, as is the case with all of my peers. You are so up your own A*** you probably would not know why.

I believe Raven is right. 15kts for FOs and 10kts for JFOs unless this has changed recently. Of course, if a captain keels over enroute (not unlikely if he is 68) the RQ or FO will land the airplane in whatever the conditions require.

Come on, enough with this crosswind crap. There are above average and below average pilots of all ranks. In fact, it could be statistically argued that exactly half (minus 1) of the pilots are below average! Yet, they all manage to land all the time (ok, 99.999999999% of the time). I am at best just another average guy, and I think it was my 4th or 5th training sector when the STC had me land in a 30kt x-wind and never took his hands off his lap. Pilots with proper training and experience know how to fly airplanes.

Being a captain has very little to do with winning the flying contest, and very much to do with leadership, trustworthiness, qualifications and experience. Well, it should, anyway.

There are plenty of JFO's and SFO's and CN's who flew plenty of aircraft to their design limit while in their 20's: From 767's to F/A-18's to Hercs to helicopters on ships to ATR-42's to C-17s to Twin Otters to dodgy little light twins, and except for the 767, I bet all of them are trickier to land than a 747/777/A330, x-wind or not.

Good post Iron Skillet.

:ok:Iron Skillet....

Unfortunately not all of us flew the Space Shuttle before joining CX, so reduced crosswind limits are there to "dumb it down" and hopefully make the overall operation safer.

Besides, if you're not getting paid for it then why do it? Let the bugger in the left seat take the heat.

Iron Skillet nailed it.:ok:

Honestly who cares about the crosswind limit?

711
How old are you?

I guess I'm not allowed to respond to insulting posts made by keyboard warriors like yourself who like to constantly pound their chest, stamp their feet and remind the world of how "good" they really are. I guess I'm not allowed to take exception to this. I'm not supposed to respond to your ilk calling the Captains they fly with "overestimated (old)...and quite limited in their operating skills and leadership..."

Just a guess, but I suspect that when you grew up everyone was awarded first place and a gold star?

What is it about guys like you who feel the need to tell the stories about your previous experience and how it is sooo underappreciated...while at the same time the experience levels of those Captains you fly with are sooo over-rated? If only life were fair, you would be recognized as the pilot you really are.....and not have to put up with ridiculous restrictions placed on your station in life. Boo Hoo!

Then there is Trebyourelk, who tells me...."Sorry to burst your bubble of self-grandeur....I am a SFO Relief Commander with CX and my crosswind limit is certainly 30kts "

I don't have any delusions. I'm happy with my rank and station in life. It's not me complaining of how poor the guys I fly with are. In any case, I'm sorry to burst your bubble Treb! You can call yourself a "Relief Commander" after a 2 hour Sim session if it makes you feel better...I'm sure the girls love to hear it....but your limit is still 15 knots until you complete a proper upgrade.

Many of us who have been in this business longer than 711 and Treb have been alive, take issue with being called names. We're tired of people like 711 who have this need to pull others down in a vain hope it will lift him up. We are tired of the childish insults.

Newsflash...we fly with you guys everyday. We know the vast majority of the good ones...and we know who the small minority of the weak ones are. Judging by your posts 711, it's my guess that you fit in the latter category. If you were really as good as you think you are, then you wouldn't have the psycological need to keep announcing it to the world.

You too would be comfortable with where you currently are in life......

Raven, you just don't get it,do you?

711
Oh.....I think I do.

Oscar Wilde would have said:

It is absurd to divide pilots into good and bad. Pilots are either charming or tedious.STP

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!

:ok:

raven, you're such a typical wank*r. I bet you have long sleeves and cufflinks! but your limit is still 15 knots until you complete a proper upgrade.

So, we all have P1 ratings and do the same sim checks (well, I must say that those for captains are easier than those for FOs) and you call "upgrade" "PROPER?"

Upgrade at Cathay Pathetic is purely being able to make it through the demeaning negative criticism without spoiling the ego of the wank*r trainer who doesn't remove his four bars while he's training a new captain because no one would recognize him as an authority figure if those four bars were not sitting on his shoulders.

A proper upgrade... :yuk:

Jesus. Give it a rest, will you.

If we're going to debate skillsets, then let's focus on the real issue at hand: our sole recruitment source is a stream of cadets who spend 3-4 years PXing before being given the controls of a 300ton+ airplane.

Whatever skills STP, 711, Nitpicker, Iron Skillet and Raven11 may (or may not) have, they're certainly going to need them as they (push/pull/roll/kick/add thrust/remove thrust/take command) [delete as required] to keep this show safely on the road from the left seat.

A 10-20% mix of cadets is a great thing and can certainly be managed (and trained) accordingly, but a 100% source is way beyond control.

With so many 'senior skill-sets' in the upper levels of this organisation (you name the background, we have it), it defies belief that we're watching this happen. The very gentlemen, who based on their lifetime of experience are perhaps the most qualified to speak against this nonsense, portray the loudest silence only broken by the clinging of coffers in hallways of power.

whackthemole,

Well said, I couldn't agree with you more.

It is indeed shocking that the entry pilot requirements for this Major, International, Widebody jet airline are 0-100 hours. It's hard to imagine that if you have couple thousand hours of Navajo or King Air time you are WAY overqualified for this job and CX is not interested in you! Just think about that, 100% of the pilots joining this airline have ZERO experience. (Yes - 200 hours is the same as zero!). Amazing, and probably completely unprecedented for Major carrier.

There are many people that are deeply concerned about this and it is indeed a shame that those with the power are letting it happen.

I haven't seen CX's new recruitment policy being publicized on the front page of the Pie Man Sarry show in the SCMP, so if he doesn't care, nobody else does!!!!!

Raven,
I am curious as to your posts. You certainly sound like a stereotype elderly westerner who is unusually defensive. Do you have regular conflict in the cockpit? I will soon be joining CX and I am interested to know why one ends up so extremely bitter? Although I have not yet done any flying, I can assure you that others of your vintage will be surprised at how quickly our skills will eclipse yours :ok:

Primed

Why don't you just Fu.........

........oh forget it...I'm sure you're as good as you think you are

Primed,
You're an Indian right?

Raven,
I am curious as to your posts. You certainly sound like a stereotype elderly westerner who is unusually defensive. Do you have regular conflict in the cockpit? I will soon be joining CX and I am interested to know why one ends up so extremely bitter? Although I have not yet done any flying, I can assure you that others of your vintage will be surprised at how quickly our skills will eclipse yours

This is the same idiot that thinks; Lack of experience can be overcome by high IQ and hard work.

And now it sounds like he is an i-cadet. If this is the path we are following now, CX is in serious trouble!

Dan buster and sorvad,

Be careful, I will most likely be doing your line check one day :O

I am curious to know if "Primed" is indeed an i-cadet or a wannabe. It is doubtful any serious first-world organization would consider this bloke to handle an airplane, much less a delivery lorry. If CX is truly a "one crash" airline, then Air China must be highly willing to take a serious haircut on their investment.

a wind up stooge I feel...we should probably just ignore him

Agreed. But I'll still be on the lookout for an indian i-kid with birthdate of april
2nd 1989. I want first dibs on his first CX line check

The reality within CX is far better than this for most.

..just hope not too many colleagues from other airlines reading this thread!!
quite weird! barely to understand how some of these "fellows"
want to command an aircraft. ..hopefully some of them will master to "resume their command of life" after they retire-without all the "appreciation" being a commander of a LH aircraft..honorable peers are not judged by their job, but by their attitude and personality!!

I am curious as to your posts. You certainly sound like a stereotype elderly westerner who is unusually defensive. Do you have regular conflict in the cockpit? I will soon be joining CX and I am interested to know why one ends up so extremely bitter? Although I have not yet done any flying, I can assure you that others of your vintage will be surprised at how quickly our skills will eclipse yours

now that is funny :ok: haha good on you. I for one am looking forward to flying with such an intelligent person.

Oval said...

"Upgrade at Cathay Pathetic is purely being able to make it through the demeaning negative criticism without spoiling the ego of the wank*r trainer who doesn't remove his four bars while he's training a new captain because no one would recognize him as an authority figure if those four bars were not sitting on his shoulders."

Does lashing out at others make you feel more like a man?? Try debating with some measured words without the use of adolescent tone, or symbology.

Oval, I've been involved in the training departments of both military and civil aviation even before I joined Cathay. So I think I can make an objective assessment about the different training systems in aviation. Cathay's training system is not perfect, but it is one of the best I've ever been involved with....and I would put it up against any other system out there.

If you really do think that Cathay is "pathetic" and that training pilots are "wank*rs" with ego problems, then I'd say your comments say more about who you are than your intended targets. Remember this thread is supposed to be about going beyond normal retirement age....unless you learn to relax the issue will prove moot.

We all have to pass annual checks and upgrades...it's part of the job. Try showing a bit more class.

And then there's Primed.....

Well, in 40 years of flying you aren't the first one just out of diapers to spout off about how good a pilot you would make, and how quickly your skills will outshine mine.....and that without even having completed your first flying lesson yet (my, my, how our recruiting has changed).

I wish you luck and hope that in 40 years (if you last that long) you'll finally achieve your goal.

well said raven

Someone wrote about 'showing a bit of class'. I think it is applicable to all of us who post on this forum as professional pilots.

How could we expect to command respect and trust from the public with posts like some of those on this thread?

I stand by my statements. I'm not saying that all trainers are wank*rs. In fact, most are not. But there are a few that are so stereotypical of the British boarding school, long-sleeved, cufflinked, "fast jet" (what's a slow jet?) mentality that they overshadow the good ones.

I still find it hard to believe, raven, that you think someone who has a P1 rating, who has the same checkrides and makes the same decisions (how many times do you see a decision made at Cathay without the captain asking "Everybody happy with that?") as the captain has to go through a "proper upgrade."

An upgrade at Cathay can never be called "training." It is pure "checking."

Oval....please tell me your post is a wind up....you can't be serious? If you really do feel this way, then you are diminishing the very profession you belong to. I should expect this kind of reasoning from someone like Primed, but not from you!

For goodness sake, one gets a P1 rating when you upgrade from S/O to F/O....that doesn't make him a Captain....it makes him a co-pilot. Do I really need to explain the difference between a brand new F/O and a Command Course grad? Between someone with 500 hours and someone with 10000 hours; between someone who has not qualified by virtue of inadequate hours and someone with the hours; between someone who has completed a command course and someone who has not. Do I really need to do that? Would you want to be, would you want your family to be, anywhere near an airplane landing in a typhoon, or in an airplane experiencing any number of technical failures, with a brand new F/O at the controls?

Does someone with a shinny new P1 rating really make the same decisions? Really? When a Captain asks what everyone in the cockpit thinks, do you think he's taking a vote? Are you perhaps confusing good CRM with command? Just who is licensed, by virtue of their experience and qualifications, and held responsible, by the CAD to make the final call?

We pilots are our own worst enemies in how we diminish our profession. And by doing so we play right into the bean counters impression of us.....we help them achieve their goal of diminishing what we do.

In the old days (pre-911) when we used to allow passengers into the cockpit, and when the wide eyed pax would inevitably look around the cockpit with awe, they would always ask with incredulity: how do you guys remember all these switches/dials?

Do you know what we all said? We said: "Ahh...Schucks Mam, it's nothing....nothing at all....a monkey could do it." Well guess what guys? After 50 years of telling people this self deprecating crap....they took our word for it...they believed us!

Do you ever, or have you ever, heard a Doctor, Lawyer, or ANY other profession, diminish what they do like we do? No other profession does this.....just us.

If you still haven't read Ernest Gann's book Fate is the Hunter, or The High and the Mighty, you need to that. What he wrote about flying, all those years ago, remains pertinent today. If not more so.

"Primed"..... Haha, a very apt handle indeed. I hope your a$$hole is primed for the shafting it's about to get over your "career".:ok:

"Primed" good god I hope you are just a wind up merchant.You haven't as much kicked a tire/tyre on a training a/c and are smarting off to senior CX crew! Every pilot on the planet remembers their first solo,some with confidence most with sphincter twinges so i suggest you atleast get to that stage before you decide who you will be checking to line.Ofcourse this comes with the caveat that you do actually have to 'solo' before joining as a SO?

I won't be needing any favors to be successful in my flight checks as I am confident I can fly the numbers. They were able to put a monkey into space... How many of you have been to space? I think some of the so called senior captains may become a little intimidated when they realize the level of intelligence that some of the new breed of SO's have. The authority gradient might become a bit flatter:)

I am thinking it's time we ignore Primed as he appears to be a wee little troll. :cool:

Primed, you remember that line from Topgun, "maybe to good". Worries me what an intellectual gaint such as yourself will get up to so that we're all left in no doubt we've been blessed by your presence. Good luck with it.

Primed,

Your ego's writing checks your body can't cash.....

raven, I know firsthand that MY "command course" was not training, it was checking, and only checking.

I am not diminishing the profession by making this statement. How you could think that is beyond me.

The HKCAD considers a P1 rating a "Pilot-in-Command" rating. Look it up. Many airlines do not P1 rate their copilots and therefore train and check them to lower standards than the pilots at that airline who have a P1 rating. Cathay does not. Although some at Cathay TREAT copilots as lower-class citizens, the checking system expects the same level of performance from all pilots with a P1 rating. Whether one is pilot-in-command or not purely depends on getting through the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet, none of which appeared to me as anything but checking.

I bet if you get the information (which you can't) you'd find that many of Cathay's copilots have more flight time and more experience in more types of aircraft flying in more varied locations than many of Cathay's captains.

You ask, Just who is licensed, by virtue of their experience and qualifications, and held responsible, by the CAD to make the final call?

Well, I would say that would be anyone the CAD has licensed with a P1 rating! It's Cathay who determines who among those with a P1 rating are captains and who are copilots, not the CAD.

Where do you get the inspiration to add the part to your post about telling passengers that what we do is "monkey business?" I never implied that.

raven, your use of the term "proper upgrade" just set me off! But, since you think, Cathay's training system is not perfect, but it is one of the best I've ever been involved with....and I would put it up against any other system out there.
my arguing otherwise would be like talking to a brick wall.

Oval...your total lack of understanding of this topic is absolutely astounding

Oval.....my goodness, where do I begin??

You say: "Although some at Cathay TREAT copilots as lower-class citizens, the checking system expects the same level of performance from all pilots with a P1 rating."

You're dreaming...I am reluctant to spell out the facts for fear that it would it would only dignify your ridiculous notion, but the system does not expect the same level of performance. As a member of that system I can tell you that you are wrong. To suggest that the system would expect that someone like Primed, after 300 to 500 hundred hours of in-seat experience, to perform at the same level as a line Captain during his PC is not only plain wrong it is patently absurd (hence the 10 knot and 15 knot limit placed on F/O's; hence the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet before upgrade to captain is authorized).

If what you suggest is true, that all P1 rated pilots are tested to the same standard, then there would not be an upgrade process in place...we would just make everyone a Captain upon upgrading to F/O. Is that what you suggest is happening now?

And then you double down by saying: "I bet if you get the information (which you can't) you'd find that many of Cathay's copilots have more flight time and more experience in more types of aircraft flying in more varied locations than many of Cathay's captains."

Are you serious? Do you even fly for Cathay? I don't even know where to begin on that tid bit. Unless your claim of F/O's with more experience than our Captains include the number of F/O's who have failed to pass the Captain course; or the number of F/O's who are categorized as Cat D after two failed Command Course attempts,... F/O's who will never be given another chance at an upgrade?Are you suggesting that Cathay hired low timers in the past but today we are hiring high timers? That claim is just laughable...

Then you say: "Well, I would say that would be anyone the CAD has licensed with a P1 rating! It's Cathay who determines who among those with a P1 rating are captains and who are copilots, not the CAD."

Wrong again....Upgrade to Captain is determined via a CAD approved process, carried out by CAD approved examiners, and the whole process is audited by the CAD. Only an authorized and CAD approved Captain can sign out an aircraft, not just anyone with a P1 rating. In other words, only someone who has completed a "proper upgrade".

You claim to be a line Captain.......that I find hard to believe. As I said to you in an earlier post, you are diminishing what we do by making the same arguements senior airline managers do in order to justify cutting salaries. Shame on you.

Oval,

Sorry to say it, but it is time for you to take out your fork and start eating some of that humble pie. I'm with Raven on this thread 100%.

That said, we do have a few jack@<hidden> trainers left at Cathay, but most of them are pretty good. Ironically, some of the worst now are the younger, newer C&Ters. It seems CX will take just about anybody these days. Some of the most recent announcements are shocking, if not outright horrifying.

WRT the command course, I would hope the trainers treat it like training up until the three bar. How are FOs supposed to know how to be a perfect captain without having done so for 10+ years? Watching only gets you so far. As always, it is a lot harder than it looks when you're the one in the seat, especially if you haven't been there in a while.

Primed,

Do yourself a huge favor and STFU. If you are joining CX, you might want to consider taking this advice for the next 5 or so years.

No matter what you all think of the Cx training / checking system the one thing that MUST change is the fact that you have NO WAY of defending yourself against a bad writeup.
CX policy is that once its written down they don't change it - even if it turns out to be incorrect or unfair.

Too many people have/are being done in by this -

Previous companies I have worked with required you - as the trainee - to also sign off the training / checking report - i.e. indicate that the writeup accurately reflects what happened - and if you did not want to sign it off then it went into a meeting between you and the trainer/checker and a manager giving you a chance at self defense. More civilized methinks.

Totally agree with you Yoke. The last two companies I was with had the same system. It is fair, provides an avenue for redress for those who have been done in by an unfair training report and alternatively removes excuses for those who have already signed their reports. Coming into the CX training system is like jumping into a time machine and going back to the 1980s.

You mean all the trainers aren't perfect in other airlines:eek:

raven11, do YOU fly for Cathay? If so, read Vol 7, Part 1. You'll see that the checking standards are the same for captains and copilots. Don't think I'm too stupid to understand that captains need to have gone through the procedure in the CAD-approved company manuals to act as PIC and sign for the aircraft. I know that. I do not disagree with your statement that not anyone with a P1 rating can sign out an aircraft. My point is purely that all Cathay captains and copilots are checked to the same standards (despite having different LIMITS for their operation on the line.) The "command course," as I'll say once again, having DONE IT, was nothing more than checking. I didn't learn anything, and that was not because I'm thick-headed. It's because no one tried to TEACH me anything. I was only criticized for every little thing the checker perceived I did wrong (and often in his own opinion only.)


I don't see how you think I'm trying to diminish our profession. I'm trying to diminish your perception that Cathay's "command course" is a course of teaching and that it's somehow "proper." I think you believe that in order to somehow justify that you've achieved something and are somehow better than those who have not had a "proper command course."


Get off your high horse.


Regarding high-timers and low-timers, Cathay certainly has many of all types. Many, if not most, of the SOs hired these past years are low-timers. But, some are very experienced. I'm only saying that just because someone is a Cathay captain doesn't mean he or she is the most experienced person in the cockpit.


As far as copilots who are not captains because they didn't make it through the minefield which is the "proper command course," no one knows but them and the 3rd floor why they were not annointed "captain." And, many times even THEY do not know why they are "Cat D'd" (another incredible Cathay system.) Now that Cat D is not forever, imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!


Yes, I am suggesting that there does not need to be an upgrade process in place. After 12 years of flying the line and being checked AT LEAST three times per year, I think any copilot, when he or she has the appropriate seniority, can be told, "Congratulations! You've passed all your checks to P1 standards, you have a P1 rating and you have enough seniority to be captain. All we need to do is to watch you operate from the left seat for a few sectors and then we'll give you your four bars." Give me an argument as to why this is so inconceivable. Many first-world airlines do it in a similar way.


raven11, you said,
You're dreaming...I am reluctant to spell out the facts for fear that it would it would only dignify your ridiculous notion, but the system does not expect the same level of performance. As a member of that system I can tell you that you are wrong. To suggest that the system would expect that someone like Primed, after 300 to 500 hundred hours of in-seat experience, to perform at the same level as a line Captain during his PC is not only plain wrong it is patently absurd (hence the 10 knot and 15 knot limit placed on F/O's; hence the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet before upgrade to captain is authorized).


Look at Vol 7, Part 1. THERE are the facts. Captains and copilots are assessed to the SAME STANDARD. The crosswind limits for copilots are for LINE OPERATIONS NOT CHECKING!


Read your books, man.

What on earth has this got to do with retirement at 68?

Baywatcher, a few pages back some posters began asserting that there was no difference between a Captain and an F/O. Their argument being that airlines need not place a premium on trying to retain their experienced pilots beyond normal retirement age because any first officer with a P1 rating could do the same job (making the same argument made by the management at every low cost carrier today).

Oval....You seem to be hung up on some status issues, telling me to get off my high horse for example; and that I think that I am somehow better....

Well..... Am I proud to be a Captain? You bet I am? Why shouldn't I be? I was damn proud to be hired by Cathay as a junior F/O (even with 6000 hours of command time on smaller jets), and I was damn proud when I was allowed to take off my two bars and put on my shiny new three bars, and then even more so with my four bars. I was proud every step of the way throughout my career. You weren't?

But more to your points......Every airline has its own standard for the completion of a command or Captain course. It's just that some airlines have looser standards than others. Some airlines, like Cathay, are right to spend money in training that other airlines refuse to do....some CEO's and senior managers justify spending less on training by using some of the arguments that you make. That is a shame, because the accident statistics speak for themselves. It remains up to us as pilots to point out the risk of lowering the bar. Perhaps you should consider it a good thing that our training standards here at Cathay are second to none.

You seem intent on focusing on the fine points of a P1 rating while ignoring the broader context. The fact that a captain and an FO both have P1 on their license does not mean that they are assessed to the same standard….and therefore, we cannot just say “congratulations…you are now a Captain…” as you would like.

No STC that I know would expect the same performance from an FO than he would expect from a captain. Would you care to point out the particular passage in Vol 7 that specifically lays that out? You can’t because the Vol7 must be read in conjunction with the CAD170, the Ops A manual and the ANO's, which read together form the basis of our training structure and speak to our testing standards.

The testing guidelines in CAD170 are objective standards. In addition to the objective standards mandated by CAD, STC's are taught and expected to apply subjective standards as well (was it safe and was it effective). It’s only after evaluating both these concepts that a pass/fail decision is made. What can be considered safe and effective for an FO is obviously different to what is expected of a Captain. To do otherwise would be unfair. An FO could do things on a check and pass that a captain could not.

To qualify to even begin a command course an FO's past performance is reviewed to consider his/her potential to achieve what is expected of a Captain by the end of the allotted time structured in the command course. That's in the Vol 7, did you skip that part? And 90% of our guys succeed on their first go…..I'd argue that speaks well about our training system.

And then regarding Cat D FO’s you say : “imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!”
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?

I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of your command training. But to claim as you do to have learned nothing during your command course is arrogant. It is not what the vast majority of command course graduates tell the third floor. You must be an exception.....

It’s obvious I am not convincing you and that you are not convincing me…..and I'm sure we're beginning to bore the h*ll out of everyone here. You are entitled to your opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.

"I have flown in just about everything, with all kinds of pilots in all parts of the world — British, French, Pakistani, Iranian, Japanese, Chinese — and there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between any of them except for one unchanging, certain fact: the best, most skillful pilot has the most experience"

— Chuck Yeager

raven11, where do I begin? Hmm... here:

Well..... Am I proud to be a Captain? You bet I am? Why shouldn't I be? I was damn proud to be hired by Cathay as a junior F/O (even with 6000 hours of command time on smaller jets), and I was damn proud when I was allowed to take off my two bars and put on my shiny new three bars, and then even more so with my four bars. I was proud every step of the way throughout my career. You weren't?

I will not get into a debate on pride. That's like debating religion or politics. I am proud when I achieve something I believe to be very special, something which would set me apart from most others. Being promoted at Cathay Pacific is far from a special achievement. Almost every pilot is promoted. How special is that? So, to answer your question, I was not proud every step of the way throughout my career. I was happy that I was making more money, had more time off and was able to make decisions and implement them rather than having to be directed by the decisions of someone else.

Perhaps you should consider it a good thing that our training standards here at Cathay are second to none.

A pretty lofty statement. I have found, during my 36 years of flying, that skills and judgment are acquired and perfected through experience on the line, not through "training." Training is necessary at the beginning, as well as during one's career, to develop and hone skills which are rarely used, but needed. I honestly cannot say that this kind of training at Cathay is any better or worse than that of any other airline for which I've flown (three.) My point, originally, in case you've forgotten, is that Cathay places way too much emphasis on checking rather than training.

I do not ignore the "broader context" of a P1 rating. Yes, there are some objective standards for testing as well as some very obvious subjective standards. My point is that Vol. 7 does NOT delineate any differences for these standards between captain and first officer. THAT'S why I didn't point out a particular passage from Vol. 7. The lack of one supports my position: there IS no difference.

How about you? Can YOU point out a passage from ANY of our documents which delineates the difference in performance expected from a captain versus a first officer?

What can be considered safe and effective for an FO is obviously different to what is expected of a Captain. To do otherwise would be unfair. An FO could do things on a check and pass that a captain could not.

So, you're implying that while the captain is asleep in the bunk that the aircraft is less safe and that if an emergency were to occur that the actions taken by the relief commander would be less effective than those which would have been taken by the captain?

To qualify to even begin a command course an FO's past performance is reviewed to consider his/her potential to achieve what is expected of a Captain by the end of the allotted time structured in the command course. That's in the Vol 7, did you skip that part?

No, I didn't skip that part. Think about our operation. Every day we fly, for years and years and years, the captain and the first officer(s) manage the flights. All information is shared, all decisions are discussed (in varying detail) and the reasoning for the decisions which are made and the actions which are taken are well understood by all involved. Although the captain has the final say, each crewmember participates. That's training! So, when it comes time for the first officer to become the captain, you tell ME what kind of additional training he NEEDS! The only thing he will be doing differently is he'll be flying from the left seat. He's seen all the rest and has been doing it, in conjunction with the captain, for the past 10 or 12 years. I really don't think any new training is necessary (except for the left seat thing) and my opinion is backed up with my experience: in previous airlines, when one becomes a captain he must first get a P1 rating (type rating) and then he's put in the left seat and OBSERVED. The observation period is to determine that he follows SOPs. No training is provided, because no training is necessary. This assumes that he was already flying the type of aircraft as a first officer and that he did not already have a P1 rating in that aircraft.

And 90% of our guys succeed on their first go…..I'd argue that speaks well about our training system.

Until I got to Cathay, I had never heard of someone not becoming captain when his seniority number allowed.

And then regarding Cat D FO’s you say : “imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!”
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?

As I said above, I do not know of any other carriers which have first officers which have failed to upgrade. I am not saying there ARE none, I'm saying that I have not experienced that. Let's assume that there ARE some United Airlines first officers that did not pass their checkrides. First of all, they would be provided training (not just additional checking, like Cathay) until it was determined that they could not be trained to pass the checkride. They would then remain first officers until they were given another chance. They would NEVER be LABELED CAT D! The company would never make a judgment and document the statement "unsuitable for command training." There would be just a record of a failed checkride (no grades, just S or U.)

But to claim as you do to have learned nothing during your command course is arrogant. It is not what the vast majority of command course graduates tell the third floor. You must be an exception.....

As I said above, I learned everything I needed to know during the time I spent as a first officer and relief commander. I don't think that's arrogant at all. I would expect nothing less from each and every first officer! As to what "command course graduates" (now THAT'S a lofty title!) tell the third floor... do you think they tell the third floor anything other than what the third floor wants to hear? I certainly didn't tell the third floor that I learned nothing during my "command course."

It’s obvious I am not convincing you and that you are not convincing me…..and I'm sure we're beginning to bore the h*ll out of everyone here. You are entitled to your opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.

I agree. I'm sure everyone is very bored. Yes, each is entitled to his or her opinion. I agree to disagree.

Are you serious? Do you even fly for Cathay? I don't even know where to begin on that tid bit. Unless your claim of F/O's with more experience than our Captains include the number of F/O's who have failed to pass the Captain course; or the number of F/O's who are categorized as Cat D after two failed Command Course attempts,... F/O's who will never be given another chance at an upgrade?Are you suggesting that Cathay hired low timers in the past but today we are hiring high timers? That claim is just laughable...

Raven, just to remind you of a number of Freighter captains who are much junior to a number of F/O's doing the hard yards. I Agree with you otherwise!

crwjerk....

Point taken. You're right, we now have some Freighter Captains that were appointed out of seniority and who have less experience that some of the F/O's that they fly with.


So how do you think that happen? It was done to save money.....because someone up the food chain was allowed to make an argument that diminished us as pilots....that all pilots are the same....that all pilots have P1 on their license.....that senior F/O's are already relief qualified....that a command course is a waste of time....and so on.

Read it for yourself on this thread....we have pilots that are only too happy to help the accountants achieve their goal and we continue to be our own worse enemies.

If we as pilots minimize what we do, if we as pilots are not proud of our experience, if we as pilots naively diminish ourselves and our accomplishments.....then the accountants will only be too happy to diminish our pay and conditions.

You really have to wonder.....

"So, you're implying that while the Captain is asleep in the bunk that the aircraft is less safe...."

Eerr YES.
Let's see, a serious inflight emergency with a Captain in the left seat and an experienced and fully type rated F/O in the right hand seat or same emergency with relief commander and a part type rated S/O. Doesn't take a lot of thought really, does it?

Perhaps AF447 might have been a bit different if the Captain had not been on the bunk when it all went wrong - who knows?

raven11, how can you make the following statement

we now have some Freighter Captains that were appointed out of seniority

when every eligible pilot senior to those now-freighter-captains was offered the position? That is NOT "out of seniority."

Just because the freighter pay was, and is, lower doesn't make a pilot who upgrades to captain on the freighter into a pilot who is upgrading "out of seniority."

Almost all airlines in the US have different pay rates for different airplanes. Someone relatively low on the seniority list being able to become a captain on a plane with a lower pay rate (and maybe at a base that is less desirable, such as Newark, New Jersey) because no one senior to him wanted to do that job for that pay is never labeled as someone who took the upgrade "out of seniority." This mentality at Cathay makes me :yuk:

raven11,

You say

we now have some Freighter Captains... who have less experience that [sic] some of the F/O's that they fly with.

What about passenger captains who have less experience than some of the F/O's with whom they fly? MANY passenger captains, especially now that most based pilots have chosen NOT to go to HKG to upgrade, joined as second officers. MANY first officers joined as first officers on the freighter and have much more experience than many of the newly-minted, ex-second officer captains.

Stop demonizing freighter pilots. If the pilots of Cathay Pacific had wanted to put a stop to the whole freighter thing, they should have done more back in 1996 than just whine. Cathay just loves it when we perpetuate the habit of sh*tting on the "new guy" because he has joined on terms less than ours.

And it's oh so entertaining to watch an 'experienced' pax Captain take a max weight freighter in to Mumbai on a dark and wet night with the lowly freighter Captain doing relief and smiling to himself from the jump seat.

Freighter Captains go to the difficult destinations, with crappy weather on hopeless rosters that mean they're constantly fatigued. 20 years of flying LHR-HKG-LHR twice a month doesn't really count as 'experience' in my book :rolleyes:

LOUD NOISES!!!

:p

Encore! Encore! Way to go Joe!

LOUD NOISES!!!

Hilarious but, sadly, the humour will be lost on many except, perhaps, Ron Burgandy? :)

STP

Oval.....

For the love of....:ugh:

I'm not demonizing freighter pilots for goodness sake....just those who make silly arguments that unwittingly diminish our profession.

As I said to you in an earlier post....you have status issues. If you prefer the American system...then exercise your options.

Cathay's training system, while not perfect, is second to none.

Cathay's training system, while not perfect, is second to none.


Enough raven,

I have been following this thread with regard to some of the posts about the Cx training/ checking system.

Cx has a training system that allows a certain Canadian stc(a very short one) to put a piece of paper with the word "bomb" written on it in the admin folder under the 2nd observer seat to see if you do the flight deck check properly!

That's training is it?:ugh:

raven11,

Maybe I just had a revelation.

If you think I am trying to diminish our profession by my statements, let me put it this way: as all Cathay pilots who are P1 rated are, in my opinion, CHECKED to the same standards, it is Cathay's choice to not give them all four stripes and pay them accordingly. US airlines put two captains and two first officers on long international flights. Cathay is the one diminishing our profession, not I.

I have no status issues. I'm a pilot, period.

raven11,
How are you enjoying this visit to planet earth?

1200...

Ohhhhh, how witty. It would seem that you are incapable of offering anything substantive to this debate other than an adolescent quip? You should stick to texting.

By the way, I'm quite comfortable here on earth. It's where I've had my feet firmly planted during my forty year career as a pilot. How many hours do you have? Just how long have you been flying for?

Please, grace us with a well reasoned and mature contribution to this debate.....?

joe.......
Pax captains also depart HK Max weight to Mumbai in dark and sh1tty conditions. Has that concept been lost on you?

Please, grace us with a well reasoned and mature contribution to this debate.....?

If your going to write this raven, better edit your post saying this.....

How many hours do you have? Just how long have you been flying for?



Comments regarding willy waving isn't the most mature contribution either!


Anyway, care to comment on my posting regarding the "training" system?

Crwjerk, I know that and I also know that the vast majority of our pax Captains would have no problem with it in the slightest. It just amuses me that there are some in the company who view freighter Captains as less competent or inferior.

This attitude is often from those who have spent a significant portion of their career flying the same route for 20+ years and landing at the same weight every time. Take these guys out of their comfort zone and send them to Mumbai in the crappy weather and nightmare ATC that we all know so well, landing at 300T, and some of them are nervous wrecks when they start the approach.

The point that Oval was trying to make in respect of experience is valid. I have flown with many excellent FOs who have remarkable backgrounds, often with 1000s of hours in command, are clearly competent, and ready to move to the left seat straightaway. It's not the CX command course that gives them these attributes, they already have them.

Raven,

yesterday my son got a sticker at his nursery, he went to the loo all by himself.
He came back bursting with pride ,could not wait to show it to me and everybody else ,at night even refused to take his sweater of.

Sounds familiar?

Badair

Oh...you were serious? You wanted a response, I thought you were just making a drive-by smear?

Your single example means that all the other trainers at Cathay are implicated as well? All the other hard working trainers...the 99%....how about their work? Is their work something for you to scoff at?

Given the challenge faced by our trainers I would think they deserve your respect.....it's easy to take cheap shots. Oh, and speaking of editing, shouldn't your first sentence end with a colon?

711....

Thank you. Your comment goes a long way towards making my point about how far the bar has been lowered in our profession......I think that nursery school is just where you belong.

Joe..

I completely agree with your last comment. There is nothing like experience.

I'd like to offer two points:

Firstly, with regard to skill level, even Tiger Woods regularly hires a golf pro to look at his swing. If he/she is serious about elevating his game, a pro should always seek the constructive advise of another pro. That is what I like to think happens during an upgrade: another pro looks at your swing and offers suggestions to help you improve it. I think that 99% of our trainers do just that.

Secondly, hiring experienced pilots is something we are doing less and less these days. Recruiting only Cadet and/or low time pilots dilutes our pool of experience. Yes, we all had 300 hours once....but I think that our recruiting system should be seeking to hire cadet pilots in proportion to skilled ones. Our managers have used the same arguments made by many on this thread to lower the recruiting bar.

Raven,

Oh, and speaking of editing, shouldn't your first sentence end with a colon?

Re read your post, too many incorrect uses of the question mark. Silly boy.


So stating a fact is a drive by smear is it?
I could give you hundreds more examples of silly check questions, but I get the feeling your so blinkered I would be wasting my time.

I am having a pop at the training system that allows certain individuals to massage their own egos at the expense of others trying to get on with their job.


Also raven, you are what's wrong with this profession, your inability to accept anybody else's opinion because your head is so far up your arse, this coupled with your far superior attitude. Can't wait til you retire.

Badair....an apt moniker.

I get it.... you think that all the trainers at Cathay are bad. You have nothing but bad examples of bad trainers. There are no good ones? The vast majority who go to work every day and put in a 100% effort to make a positive contribution are not up to your high standards.

It's not me who has the inferiority issues.

Oh, and when you punctuation is perfect, then criticize my mine. Hypocrite.

Unfortunately for you, you're going to have to wait nine years for me to retire.

Both fair points Raven but as others are trying to say, there are too many individual trainers that don't approach it this way. We have some very good trainers who are genuinely interested in helping and a pleasure to fly with but is there anybody in CX that hasn't had training or a check from a trainer whose sole intention is to demonstrate what a superior pilot he is by pointing out your every trivial mistake?

Raven,



Oh, and when you punctuation is perfect, then criticize my mine. Hypocrite.


Sorry, who's the hypocrite?


As I said before raven.......I am criticising the SYSTEM.
I don't care how long it is til you retire old man, I am just looking forward to it. Bit sad really you feel the need to go all the way to 65, I guess you don't have much of a life, but I guess your going to tell me how great your life is though.

I agree Joe....

But isn't that the case in every system? I think a certain Chief Pilot, who while Training Manger on the 744, deserves credit for culling the system of some of the more infamous examples of bad trainers. Shouldn't we give credit for that?

Unfortunately, some are only capable of posting venom. No amount of evidence will satisfy them.

Badair...

You obviously do care how long it is until I retire....you said so! And I'm not the one complaining....that's you!

Now count to ten before you go near the keyboard...then offer something substantive.

Now count to ten before you go near the keyboard...then offer something substantive.


Please feel free to take your own advice.

raven11 and badairsucker

Pistols at dawn gentlemen? :)

STP

Steve,

I prefer hand to hand combat.:ok:

Badair...

Have your second talk to my second.....:E

I only do face to face.:E

Marquess of Queensberry it is then.

Mr badairsucker, of course it will be face to face but Mr raven11 suggested, quite correctly I might add, that your second should contact his to arrange a mutually agreeable time for the duel to take place.

Should your second not contact his within 24 hours then I shall assume you forfeit and I shall have no choice but to declare Mr raven11 the winner of this most bitter dispute :)

STP

Raven,
To say that CX trainers are second to none is like Australians saying that Australia is the best country in the world.
Maybe one or both of the above is true but who is the judge? Who should be the judge? You? Trainees?
CX training is political minefield, full of ego,constantly changing operating procedures (CCOP's), and those who want to leave their own little legacy on the aviation world.
(i.e. Big fish,Small pond syndrome)

1200...

Valid points, no one likes a braggart.

But if you reread my post it was in response to some sarcasm and ridicule that suggested that Cathay's training was not as good as training systems in other airlines.....

I said that the Cathay system was not perfect, but second to none....or words to that effect. By saying second to none my point was that it was at least as good as any other system out there. That was the context, and that's how feel.

There is no doubt in my mind that during the eighties and nineties, yes, Cathay's training was more checking than training. During the nineties, as a North American based F/O, there were a couple of individuals that I never wanted to fly with...and we all knew who they were. But those of us who have been here for a while can attest to how much the training system has changed. The bad guys have mellowed, or they have been culled.

In my opinion, Cathay's training system is world class....it has to be! Just look the challenges we face in our day to day operation......management takes for granted that any one of us can safely operate on slippery runways in a snow storm, or into a typhoon, on Yankee One, through tropical storms, during 300 ton landings in a monsoon, a sandstorm in Dubai, or a line check to Manilla...the list is endless. Given some very challenging emergency situations in the past couple of years, our management should thank their lucky stars that we are the pilots we are.

Cathay's training system is not perfect...and we have room to improve.....but it is world class, it has to be for us to survive, and the IOSA audits say so.

I'm proud of who we are and what we do and how we do it!

This airline gets top value from every penny they pay us! That too should be read in the results of the IOSA audits.....and from the annual results reported each March.

Given their recruitment issues....it's no wonder they want to retain their experienced pilots. But does any one of us seriously believe we could fly to age 68?

Most of us won't make 65.

Raven
"Cathay's training system is not perfect...and we have room to improve.....but it is world class, it has to be for us to survive, and the IOSA audits say so."

A bold statement!

Without geting into a discussion on the state of Cathay's training system I think that you might first want to look at the list of IATA registered airlines, i.e. those that have successfully completed an IOSA audit.

There are some on the list that I would definitely avoid.

Bear in mind that an audit is a sampling exercise and does not purport to be a total systems review. Additionally airlines receive a lot of prior notice about when an audit will take place and have some time to get their house in order.

"Forewarned is forearmed", I believe is the saying.

I have carried out around one hundred audits, non IOSA but I have completed an IOSA auditor's course. What I have found, around the world, is that if the Regulator is doing its job and the Operator has a sound Quality Management department, half the batle is won.

I will let you decide where HKCAD and CX stand on that point.

P.S. I survived 20 years (as a victim) of Cathay's training system - it worked alright for me!

hello my pilot friends..!! that´s possible i need information about line training with possibility of working, i´m spanish pilot i have got around 300 h fly experience, i,m 50 years old... what are my possibilities?... thank you very much, i hope your answers please..

I think the discussion on the quality of the CX training system is a futile one. It should be obvious to any fair minded individual that CX, like any other organisation, will at times appoint people to positions for which they are unsuited. CX's record over many years is enviable. That is despite some whom, whilst excellent "stick & rudder" operators, could not train a duck to swim. The number of training people unsuited to the task were very much in the minority in my experience with CX, just as were the "check" members. Obviously things change and I am in no position to comment on the current situation. It would seem to me, from afar, that much of what Raven11 has posted is plausible. Some other posters seem to have a very large chip on one or both shoulders and would likely have the same chips no matter for whom they worked. Make the most of what CX offers folks and if you don't enjoy being there go find somewhere else to make you feel better.

Cathay guys are very good for sure ...however one also has to admire Brian Clough (ex manager of Derby County Rip):

'Im not saying that i was the best manager in the business ,but i was in the top one '

safe flying guys.:ok:

Regardless of what you think about the CX training department, they are not good enough to facilitate guys flying to 68!

Also, Camel says CX pilots are "very good for sure." I won't disagree as I am one, but we often look and sound pretty stupid in the US with our inability to accept and fly a visual approach. Talk about making mountains out of molehills...

I saw a great visual approach the other day!

ILS/autopilot to 1,000'; LAND3 Rollout armed, Flare armed; ILS missed approach briefed for a cleared visual approach.

CAVOK and winds straight down the runway

If we can't fly a visual approach properly in those conditions, when can we ever?

Look at NTC about how to fly a visual approach. How many pages is it? Three?

Unbelievable!

My point exactly Oval!

I'd love to here the training boys justify the visual approach buffoonery we witness daily.

Old Fella

You say:-

" Obviously things change and I am in no position to comment on the current situation."

"Make the most of what CX offers folks and if you don't enjoy being there go find somewhere else to make you feel better."

You are indeed in no position to comment on today's Cathay Pacific. I note that you are 71 years old. That being the case, you would have retired from Cathay 16 years ago around 1996. That would have been on an A scale provident fund ?

Good luck to you, I hope that you have a good and long retirement.

Unfortunately those at CX do not enjoy these priveleges and frequently do 90 hours per month - which would have doubled your monthly salary during your time. Roster and life style are continually being eroded -remember you were contracted for 70 hours per month with credits for Reserve duty, Simulator time and positioning.

You suggest "go find somewhere else" .. but where? People have invested a good portion of their working lives to CX. Even if they found a position as a DEC at another airline they could not make up for that lost time and would never enjoy the retirement benefits that you enjoy even if they worked to 65.

Sadly todays' airline industry is not what we enjoyed. The lack of any morality is prevalent in most of today's operators and in that Cathay leads the way and has done since around 1994. Remember COS 94 - sign or you'll never get another pay rise and will never be eligible to go on a base? Remember ASL? I do, I was a victim along with 41 of my loyal colleagues. And then there were the 49ers!!!!

Whereas in our day CX recruited experience, today's CX recruits cheap labour and strives to make that labour cheaper still.

You and I should be grateful for what we have and should have some sympathy for those that thought they were joining a caring and moral Company only to discover, perhaps to late, that the Company they joined is morally bankrupt.

Sitting on the threshold at Kansai r/w 24. Beautiful day and every one doing visual approaches.....except CX...asking for the ILS24. This is what we have come to..it was so embarrassing. I wanted to use a different call sign for take off.

PanZa-Lead, I agree 100%. Embarrassing.

FERetd. Regardless of when I retired, which in fact was 1991, my comments are not made without sympathy for those whom are not happy in the employ of CX. My experience with CX left me with good memories only. I know things do change and that is why I said what I did. In my working life one thing I quickly learned was that it is very difficult to be very good at a job you do not enjoy. To those whom feel badly treated at CX I would always suggest that they vote with their feet. To do otherwise must invariably lead to an unhappy life, life which is too short to be ruined by bitterness.

Old Fella

Thank you for enlightening me. I note that you left Cathay in 1991 - in the days when they were paying a profit share bonus of 2.99 months of A scale salary.

When you left Cathay 21 years ago it was a fantastic company, I joined only three years previously. I left (resigned) 4-5 years ago because it was no longer so.

You left Cathay even before the introduction of B scale salaries.

The deceit and mistrust that is apparent today was not so in your day; as I have said, it began around 1994.

I'm afraid that after 21 years, you are so far out of touch.

I can only quote your own words " Obviously things change and I am in no position to comment on the current situation."

Old Fella, my sincere apologies, but whatever CX was when you were here, it is anything but now.

You walk onto any flight deck, any fleet, and you know it's gonna be 10h of bitching. We all hate cx pacific.

FERetd. You say that the "rot" set in during 1994 and that was about six years after you joined CX. By my reckoning you remained until around 2007-2008. You must have had a miserable time of it for those 13 or 14 years after the deceit and mistrust began. Mate, nothing I have said indicates a lack of sympathy for those not happy with CX. I feel very sorry for anyone who stays in a job where they feel constantly under-valued. A bit like staying with a spouse whom you do not like or trust I suggest. I stayed less than 8 years and left only because basings were not available and my family were mostly in Australia and growing. I left not because of any bitterness as CX always treated me well and I reckon I repaid that with loyalty to the company.

We are not supposed to accept circling approaches, what is the problem with accepting a visual?

I like it!!! (Flak jacket on)

there's a 20 minute pre-brief required !

As I no longer wish to be unhappy in Cathay and want to take your advice and leave, where can I go to enjoy what you had?

.....as I presume you will not have an answer to my rhetorical question I suggest you keep your opinions on the Cathay of today to yourself as you are no longer valid in todays aviation.

No need to be rude Brown Nose. Old Fella may be completely out of touch and he has acknowledged so, however he is perfectly entitled to pass comment on how things once were.

FWIW Old fella, you advocate leaving if you're not happy, but the problem with aviation today is that every company treats its pilots like sh!te. Coupled with seniority based systems we are effectively handcuffed and the only option is try and improve your lot from within.

I did not say "that the "rot" set in during 1994"

I actually said "The lack of any morality is prevalent in most of today's operators and in that Cathay leads the way and has done since around 1994".

I believe that 1994 was the beginning, it has worsened over the years. The "rot" affected me early in 1997 and yes, although I still thoroughly enjoyed my job and operated with a lot of good people, I did not enjoy the last 10 years of working for Cathay. Whereas I used to answer my phone on a "G" day and I was loyal employee, that stopped in 1997. I did not take SLS after the SARS episode. Loyalty is a two way street - something that the DFO at the time couldn't seem to grasp.

I would have liked to been able to take my services elsewhere - but where? Much like those people who are writing on this forum now!

I am very happy that you left Cathay (in 1991) without any bitterness but I don't think that 8 years at Cathay, which ended 21 years ago, can give you a real understanding of recent issues. I wonder if having left in 1991 you can have any real grasp of events post 1994.

I am sure that the vast majority of pilots at Cathay enjoy their job immensely. Whether they enjoy Cathay is another matter.

I think that Brown Nose has asked a perfectly reasonable question of you - I do not note any of the rudeness perceived by joebanana.

So, rhetorical or not, what is your answer?

Brown Nose:ok:

joebanana. Thank you for your defence of my right to express an opinion. If, as you say, every company treats it's pilots like shite I am very sorry for you. It certainly seems as though CX has a number of unhappy pilots, in fact whackthemole claims on "any flight deck" or "any fleet" you all hate CX. That, I would think, is an exaggeration.

I do not claim to have the answers. I simply do not believe that there cannot be opportunities elsewhere for a much more pleasant working environment. Constant unhappiness in the work place certainly would, and did, lead me to find an alternative employer or even an alternative occupation. I actually left the RAAF after 23 years for one reason only, never home long enough to enjoy my family life. I drove busses and coaches for 30 months between the RAAF and CX and I honestly enjoyed the change.

If the only way to improve your lot is to walk away, do it. Life is just too short to make everyone else miserable with your individual woes. Good luck to you all.

BTW, thanks Brown Nose, go smell the roses instead of being so B & T.

Raven,

wow never seen such dedication to a thread ! Agree with you that we walk a fine line between maintaining our COS and the training standard. However disagree that our training is second to none. Whether you meant that it was tied for first or that it was " the best" is irrelevant. The fact is , as within a cockpit, the minute you think you are too good to fail , that is when you have a serious accident or incident. I chose those words because they were recently used in our audit report.

There are many areas for improvement in our checking system. Expecting pilots to learn "local knowledge" from our lame route briefings is ridiculous. We should foster a culture where the pilot who has the local knowledge shares, line check or not. A pilot should come out of a sim a better pilot than they went in. That would require a more open "training" culture. The sim is an expensive piece of equipment highly under used here. When does anyone volunteer their weakness in the sim ?

If Captains are "checked" to a higher standard why do FOs do a 4 sector line check and the Captain only 2. If you were right it would be reversed. How many sim sessions where the FO eats the mistakes regardless of who made them ?

There is too much randomness in the checking process. Too much luck in who gets assigned for your checks on a command course. Some make it through with less ability than some who fail because of who they draw. Some people fail PCAs or 3bars or are pulled off command courses without fully understanding why.

The interesting thing is that maybe just maybe things may improve as based law creeps into contracts.

As for "vote with your feet" I have always hated that statement.

How about, "let's all work together to improve things" ! Here is the kicker we could improve the checking system and it would benefit everyone, the co. The pilots and the bottom line. The only ones left out might be those stuck in the dark ages, those unable to actually improve the performance of their trainee/checkee . Those who see themselves as custodians of the SOPs rather than helpfull motivators.

Peace out.

QUOTE

"You walk onto any flight deck, any fleet, and you know it's
gonna be 10h of bitching. We all hate cx pacific"

UNQUOTE

1) Wrong - Too General - Sometimes it's a lot of Bitching

2) I; on balance, like working for Cathay Pacific - otherwise .... I'D LEAVE

White None. I suspect you would be in the majority. Stick with it whilst ever you don't have a guarantee of a better job elsewhere. Some comments here remind me of the saying "I had no shoes and complained until I met a man who had no feet".

'The more things change the more they stay the same...' This is a true story:

A bit over two decades ago, some CX pilots and flight engineers were sharing a large table with a Delta crew at what was then a well-known 'airline' beer-hall style restaurant in Mainz on a FRA layover. One of the Americans shouted,

'Hey, I bet you guys are Cath-ay!'

'Erm... yes, how did you pick that?'

'Ya got no women with ya and yore bitchin' about your management!'.

CD, even two decades ago SOME whinged about CX. Mostly, they had forgotten from whence they had come and what COS they had pre-CX. Born to whinge I would say.

A 300 Ton landing in a Monsoon


How do they do it..

RA 68...why would any sane pilot consider retiring at an age that the Company specifies as some arbitrary limit that suits them (the Company), rather than retiring when it suits you personally as the individual?

The Company already runs your daily life through the Roster...but even worse, it jerks you and your family around with continuous short term notice changes to said Roster.

Your time off is further disrupted by requests from the Company which you feel compelled to carry out under duress of endangering your promotion prospects and job security.

Your leave is disrupted by your inability to book "confirmed" Priority 4 tickets or just get the heck out of Hong Kong to anywhere acceptable with your family on any type of staff ticket.

You are lucky to get any annual leave, let alone leave that might be at a time of the year that is suitable and beneficial to you and your family.

Don't work one minute more for this Company than you can afford. Save your money for retirement and retire as soon as you have enough...

And especially, retire before you are too old to enjoy retirement or croak on the job...it's not worth it.

Quite funny this bollocks about how LHR - HKG skippers can't do heavyweight landings on a rainy night in Bombay. What difference does it make where you land and at what weight? Right place, right time, right stable approach and Bombay is easy or nobody should do it. Don't kid yourselves young boys - we did these trips when nobody knew they were a bit special. And we couldn't practice them on a FliteSim either.:ok: