I am glad you have dropped the racecard. I think the thrust of your post is contained in the following 2 quotes;
"However, I still think it is fair to call the CX status quo discrimination against those from Hong Kong - which is really the relevant issue here" and
"The point is that all officers, except CEPs, have a mechanism for being able to achieve the full allowance package in Hong Kong. I do not think this is fair. I do believe it is discrimination."
Again, your argument would hold some validity if those pilots who had HKID's, but went overseas and gained the necessary qualifications and experience, and then joined CX as DESO's or DEFO's were compelled by virtue of their HKID's to be CEPs/ LEP's. But this is not the case.
We all can, and often do, bleat about our contracts being unfair with varying degrees of validity. Both you and I will never be on A Scale because we joined after 1993, yet we do the same job as the A scaler. Is that unfair, is it discriminatory?
To label something discriminatory I believe you cross a line; you are saying it is more than unfair, you are saying it is abhorent and in this day and age you are saying it is legally challengable. I am very uncomfortable with labelling this as discriminatory.
However, those who have posted along the lines of Michael Bolton, need to be aware that the company are opening the door to change. LEPs now get a form of Education Allowance and if the DFO's words can be taken at face value
, he is entertaining the idea of a payment to LEP's in lieu of housing. This is happening with or without the wider pilot bodies input..... should we care?